Young Earth Creationism

This tag is associated with 134 posts

Book Review: “Friend of Science, Friend of Faith” by Gregg Davidson

There are times when you read a book and realize it will be foundational going forward for your understanding of a certain topic. Gregg Davidson’s Friend of Science, Friend of Faith: Listening to God in His Works and Word is a book that will surely be formative for this reader on science and faith issues. It is a rigorous, insightful examination of the intersection of Christianity and science that will surprise, delight, and challenge almost any reader.

Science and Christianity is one of those topics that seems so overdone that it may feel as though nothing new can be written on it. But Davidson has written a book that will be refreshing for those who’ve already (as I have) read hundreds of books on the topic. Davidson starts off simply, noting the way that many have created a scenario for a crisis of faith by painting mainstream science as in direct opposition to aspects of Christianity and the Bible. Davidson notes that there are three essential questions when assessing apparent science-Bible tensions (wording and questions on p. 23): 1. Does the infallibility of Scripture rest on a literal interpretation of the verses in question? 2. Does science conflict with the intended message of Scripture? 3. Is the science credible?

These questions form the basis for much of the rest of the book, but Davidson approaches them in ways that are informative and even surprising for those who have trod much of this ground before. One of the many examples of this is right near the beginning, as Davidson goes over the conflict over Heliocentrism vs. Scripture. First, Davidson notes that it was not just Roman Catholics who had problems with Galileo, citing Martin Luther and John Calvin’s own objections to the man’s theory. Second, Davidson notes the real shift in interpretation on Scripture here–something that is integral to the story but often skated over. Christians really were reading passages literally and seeing this as conflict with Scripture. Davidson then filters the Heliocentrism debate through his three questions presented above, noting the way that believers were forced to re-evaluate commonly held notions about Scripture. The conclusion is that science can force us to go back to the text and test our interpretation to see whether it is accurate.

Davidson also argues extensively for accommodation in Scripture. Through his arguments, it becomes clear that Christians must either accept for accommodation of worldviews that had mistaken views of science present in Scripture or deny reality. This is a strong dichotomy, but one example is the question of seeds. Jesus clearly states that the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds (Mark 4:30-32), and it decidedly is not (forget-me-nots, celery, poppies, orchids, and sundews all have smaller seeds). Moreover, Jesus says that grains of wheat die in order to produce more wheat (John 12:24), but seeds do not die in order to grow. Readers who insist on a lack of accommodation in Scripture must therefore live in the uncomfortable realm where Jesus was mistaken on the size of seeds or how plants grow. This is just one of the examples Davidson raises, in addition to answering common objections (like the attempt to argue these are simply phenomenological language) (43ff).

Davidson goes on to note several parts of Scripture that cannot be read literally, problems with insisting on modern science as the real rationale behind several passages dealing with things like the firmament (see 64ff), and how to read Genesis well.

Next, Davidson moves on to the question of whether modern science conflicts with Scripture. This fascinating part of the book sees Davidson showing biblical accounts of things like creation, the origin of life, and more, showing the scientific explanations for these, and then offering a synthesis. This synthesis, it ought to be noted, is not a Concordist view of Scripture that attempts to say modern science is found in Scripture. Instead, Davidson’s syntheses are offered to show that modern science does not conflict with Scripture, a substantive difference that makes a significant change for how Scripture is treated alongside science.

The next part of the book addresses whether modern science is credible. First, Davidson notes the difference between science and philosophy, and how many on almost any side of the science/faith debates conflate the two, insisting that materalism just is science or the like (121ff). Then follows several chapters outlining in clear, distinct ways the science behind things like the age of the universe and Earth, evidence for evolution from many, many different lines of evidence, and problems with various creationist accounts of the same. At no point does Davidson denigrate his opponents, but he instead offers incisive criticisms that demonstrate flaws in their systems.

Several more chapters address problems with creation science, the strange and somewhat surprising shift of so many young earth creationists to effectively endorsing hyper-evolution, and problems with Intelligent Design. Davidson addresses many common creationist arguments and demonstrates their flaws. For example, the argument that millions of years was invented to challenge Christian faith is fatally mistaken due to the fact that many geologists who discovered deep time professed their Christian faith alongside their discoveries. Soft tissue found in dinosaur bones is another argument addressed, showing that the molecular structure of preserved proteins in dinosaur tissue actually show more similarity to birds than reptiles, and that the discovery of rare soft tissue does not, in fact, demonstrate a young earth (219-220). Many more arguments are addressed. Prominent young earth groups like Answers in Genesis have been offering scenarios where rapid speciation occurred post-Flood in order to explain away many difficulties with a certain reading of the Ark narrative. Davidson notes many problems with this scenario, including the lack of time for generational adaptation, the existence of isolated populations, and the misuse of loss of information in genetic coding to explain speciation.

Davidson’s analysis of Intelligent Design points out several flaws with the movement and its arguments. For one, he shows the major difference between William Paley’s original advocacy of design, which was seen as something across all of nature and served as a very broad argument, and modern ID theory which focuses on a few specific instances that are said to point to design. Davidson argues that “if evidence of God is found primarily in places of nature that are beyond our current comprehension, then evidence for God is–almost by definition–continuously shrinking” (261). Moreover, even in the time of people like Leibniz, arguments were already being offered against design of specific features, because they could just as easily be seen as evidence of inefficient design or the need to correct a very good creation. Another problem with ID is that its hypothesis is, ultimately, untestable. Though it is argued that ID can be seen as science, science must be testable, and any number of ways to consider an experiment to try to demonstrate ID fail (264ff). Finally, Davidson closes with a summary of the work and how he’s offered a way forward that won’t lead to the crises of faith noted at the beginning of the book.

It should be noted that the book is richly illustrated in black-and-white with many charts, graphs, and pictures that always add to the text and which often are used to highlight specific ideas or topics.

Friend of Science, Friend of Faith is simply fantastic. It’s the kind of single-volume look at science and faith that could be handed to almost anyone to challenge assumptions and lead to new learning on the topic. I cannot recommend it highly enough; it’s that excellent.

Disclaimer: I was provided with a copy of the book for review by the publisher. I was not required to give any specific kind of feedback whatsoever.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

SDG.

——

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.

Book Review: “A Worldview Approach to Science and Scripture” by Carol Hill

There are many textbooks out there purporting to put forward the best view of science from a Christian standpoint, but most come from a young earth creationist point of view. Carol Hill, with A Worldview Approach to Science and Scripture, provides an alternative that unites mainstream science with thoughtful reading of the biblical text. But the book is more than one might think if one gets the impression of a dry textbook from this description–it’s an introduction to how Christians can think about numerous science-faith topics, a survey of competing literature, and an analysis of various views of science and faith.

The book is divided into 10 chapters, beginning with a chapter that defines the notion of a “worldview approach” to science and Christianity. A worldview approach is a holistic look at how to approach the Bible, scripture, and more–allowing one to integrate insights from various positions into one coherent whole. Hill outlines the basic premise of the worldview approach as: “the Bible in its original context records historical events if considered from the worldview of the biblical authors who wrote it” (12-13). This is important: it allows Hill to affirm historicity of the biblical account while not settling for simplistic answers in interpretation.

The second through fourth chapter deal with the Six Days of Creation, the Garden of Eden, and the book of Numbers/Chronologies of Genesis respectively. The chapter on the Garden of Eden is of particular interest because Hill both makes a strong argument for a real, true to life location for the Garden of Eden while also noting that the Flood Geology that young earth creationists so often espouse cannot account for the actual location of the Garden. The ages of the patriarchs is also a notable section as Hill notes the numbers being used in specifically theological and analogical ways by the author.

Chapters 5-7 deal with Noah’s Flood from a number of points, and it is an extremely helpful section both for analyzing the young earth creationist/flood geology account and for noting the language of the Bible and the local nature of the Flood. Hill, once again, sides with seeing the Flood as historical (as she sees the Garden of Eden as a historical possibility) while also noting the real difficulties with a literalistic reading. A number of interesting points related to Mount Ararat and the attempts to locate the actual Ark are made here, as well. The analysis is keen, showing difficulties with various theories, while also showing the misguided nature of such attempts to find the Ark. Hill argues for a local flood, but does so both from the text and geology, offering a holistic approach to the question.

Chapter 8 considers evolution and genetics, noting the attempts by some to turn the word “kind” in the Bible into something that would allow for immense speciation after the Flood. Hill also notes some of the apparent problems with evolutionary theory, while also showing the evidence for evolution and how powerful that evidence is. Chapter 9 considers Adam and Eve. The question of people outside the Garden is not a problem for Hill’s “Worldview Approach” because she argues that the purpose of the authors was to write the story of God’s interaction with their ancestors and not to write the story of everybody everywhere at all times (151). Chapter 10 presents Hill’s view in short, “Putting it All Together” to present it to readers. Here, Hill outlines the entirety of her position, bringing together everything from the previous chapters.

I should note that the book is richly printed with color photography throughout. Like The Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth, this book uses the illustrations both for beauty and for specific points. The beauty of the book should not be understated, and the color photography helps it function as intended: a text that can be used to explore Christianity and science.

A Worldview Approach to Science and Scripture is an invaluable text that presents, in readable form, a fairly comprehensive (though compact) view of Christianity related to some of the biggest questions that arise when considering science. Recommended.

Disclaimer: I was provided with a copy of the book for review by the publisher. I was not required to give any specific kind of feedback whatsoever.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

SDG.

——

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.

“We Believe in Dinosaurs” – The Ark Encounter Examined

The Ark Encounter is a controversial attempt to create a monument to what one group of people sees as biblical truth. “We Believe in Dinosaurs” documents the making of the Ark, both before and after, through several different lenses–a creationist working on the project, a geologist opposing it, an atheist protesting it, a woman who speaks in defense of creationism, a business owner hoping it will revitalize the town, a pastor who sees it as too closely uniting church and state, and a young Christian man who’s changed his mind. Recently, I had the chance to watch the documentary on PBS. It’s also available on Amazon.

One thing that makes the documentary so fascinating is that range of voices and perspectives it presents. Doug Henderson is the lead project designer at the Creation Museum and in the documentary he helped design the exhibits and leads a team making animals to go on the Ark, among other things. He’s a fully convinced Young Earth Creationist who believes the world is about 6,000 years old and that a global flood can account for the geologic record of our planet. He admits to having some doubts in the past, but that he resolved those doubts through a firm reliance on what he sees as the correct way to interpret the Bible. One of the most poignant moments of the documentary has him appealing to the camera with the notion that “I’m not crazy” and that he’s just as normal as anyone else, he just believes the Earth is young. It’s a rare, emotionally vivid moment in creation-evolution debates where the facade of certainty is stripped away and, as a viewer, one can witness that these are real people with real concerns. It’s powerful.

David Macmillan used to be a young earth creationist, and even donated enough to have his name on the wall at the Creation Museum. His own journey led him to question the truth of young earth creationism and he points out that it was a questioning of the rigidity of interpretation as well as scientific findings that caused him to change his view. As a viewer, he related to me quite a bit because his journey is very similar to my own.

Dan Phelps is a geologist who thinks the Ark Encounter is anti-science and has done the work to demonstrate it. But he rose to prominence in opposition to the project not because of geological disputes but due to his taking issue with tax dollars being used to supplement the building of the Ark. What was most alarming to him was that the Ark Encounter’s job applications at every level, whether project leader or janitor, required strict adherence to the full statement of faith of Answers in Genesis. This meant not only that atheists need not apply, as his op-ed got titled, but also that no Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, and even many, many Christians need apply either. To have this kind of hiring policy while also getting government money was alarming, and the documentary follows the fight against this government funding. Ultimately, this battle was lost and the Ark Encounter received grants and other aid from both state and local governments, despite claims both that the Ark is an evangelistic tool and the strict hiring practices.

One of the most alarming parts of the film is found when Jim Helten, President of the Tri-State Freethinkers (an atheist organization) who raised money to make billboards slamming the Ark Encounter and Creation museum as the “Genocide and Incest” museum is interviewed for the radio. What’s alarming about this is the way the Christian reacts to the atheist in this encounter. Jim alleges that the Ark implies incest and genocide because the flood kills everyone not on the ark, whether innocent or not, and then that the world has to get repopulated through incest because only Noah’s family was on the Ark. One can debate the nuance (or lack thereof) of Jim’s interpretation, but the Christian on the other end of the line turns around and immediately consigns Jim to hell. He says he’ll pray for Jim to not be in hell, but finally becomes unhinged and says “and there’ll be a million serpents biting your legs for eternity” as though that’s a reasonable response to Jim’s charges and his efforts to put up somewhat inflammatory billboards. Jim points out that he’s being threatened with eternal torture for asking for evidence. It’s another one of the moments that the documentary does so well of creating times to think and reflect and wonder. How is it possible that an ostensibly Christian person would think such a response was justified–and where did the line about the serpents come from?

A major aspect of the documentary is showing the Ark Encounter’s impact on the local community. It’s not clear what explicit promises were made, but it is clear that the people of Williamstown, Kentucky were given the impression that the Ark Encounter would bring a business boom to their community and help revitalize a downtown that Jamie Baker, interviewed in the documentary, said was so slow at times you could almost see tumbleweeds. The documentary covers several aspects of this hope, showing one group singing a song about their excitement related to the Ark Encounter. Just a few years later, that same place is a vacant facade, to go along with all the other places for sale or rent in a downtown that hasn’t been helped at all. One person in the documentary said they were promised shuttles would bring people into town to eat and shop, but that they only rarely see even a car driving through.

It is not clear, again, what promises were made to the people of Williamstown, but whatever hopes were raised have since, apparently, been crushed. The Ark Encounter isn’t helping the community in a monetary way so far as one can tell from the documentary. This, despite the city selling 78 acres of land to the Ark Encounter for $1 and giving them $175,000. This may not seem like a big problem–businesses make promises and bully people into helping them turn a profit all the time. But the Ark Encounter is an ostensibly Christian exhibit! Its staff has to subscribe to a strict statement of faith. One would expect integrity and openness from such people, not attacks on people who question their practices and attempts to block or obfuscate information related to their exhibit.

“We Believe in Dinosaurs” is a fascinating, challenging watch. It presents many sides, both sympathetic and not, related to the Ark Encounter. I haven’t even gone over several other people who show up in the documentary, and there’s much more there. I highly recommend it to anyone, given its broad range of interests from religious freedom, church and state issues, questions about science and faith, and more.

Links

What options are there in the origins debate? – A Taxonomy of Christian Origins Positions– I clarify the breadth of options available for Christians who want to interact on various levels with models of origins. I think this post is extremely important because it gives readers a chance to see the various positions explained briefly.

What is the relationship between Christianity and science?- An Overview of 4 Views– How should the Christian faith interact with science? Do they interact at all? I survey 4 major views on these and other questions.

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Origins Debate– Read a whole bunch more on different views within Christianity of the “origins debate.” Here I have posts on young and old earth creationism, intelligent design, theistic evolutionism, and more!

SDG.

——

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.

Book Review: “The Liturgy of Creation: Understanding Calendars in Old Testament Context” by Michael LeFebvre

The common saying that “the more you know, the more you know you don’t know” applies perhaps especially well to theology. It shouldn’t be surprising, as it is a topic that attempts to make sense of the infinite. Questions in Christianity about creation abound. Modern debates are often more heat than light, with apparently no way to come to an understanding. Michael LeFebvre’s The Liturgy of Creation: Understanding Calendars in Old Testament Context is a book that can help to break that deadlock and help readers learn about some of the context and meaning of key Old Testament passages.

The core of LeFebvre’s thesis is that the Old Testament narratives center around key aspects of everyday life in their temporal contexts. Specifically, the heavenly lights and the agricultural cycle–which crops could be grown when, harvest time, etc.–helped ground those who spoke and wrote the Old Testament in ways that they would understand. From this, LeFebvre notes that we do the Old Testament damage when we insist upon it providing a kind of modern journalistic approach to dates and dating. The way festivals and days were used in the Old Testament helped provide information to those who heard it about how life ought to be lived and how labor and worship go hand-in-hand.

LeFebvre makes this argument over the course of three major parts. Part I- Israel’s Calendars examines the way calendars were used in the Bible and what reference points they had for understanding time. Part II – Festivals and Their Stories surveys the festivals mentioned throughout the Old Testament and why they were celebrated, grounding them both in the context of the Old Testament text and the time and places in which they occurred. Part III – The Creation Week examines the creation week with the insights gained from Parts I and II in mind.

Part I is a deep exploration of how ancient Israel would have read time, showing not only the use of the stars, the moon, and the sun, but also the way seasons ran throughout the region as ways that people measured their own lives and ways of going about living. LeFebvre is fairly comprehensive in his look at all the stories in the Old Testament that have dates as well as bringing up every festival and examining its importance and usage in the Old Testament. Readers will likely find much to examine and benefit from throughout these first two parts.

It is in part III where the rubber meets the road and LeFebvre applies his insights into timing throughout the Old Testament to the specific questions about the week of creation. The days themselves are laid out in such a way as to correspond to his theses about how Israel ordered itself. LeFebvre makes a strong argument that these creation days are not intended to be read in light of modern science and forced into such a box. Instead, they are intended to give order to creation and one’s own life, providing a reason for Sabbath as well as an understanding of all creation within the context of God’s ordered running of the seasons and universe.

The Liturgy of Creation is an excellent look at what the calendars, seasons, and dates in the Old Testament mean in their own context. LeFebvre brings light to some of the more difficult questions in interpretation, while also challenging readers to examine their own assumptions about the text. Highly recommended.

Disclaimer: I was provided with a copy of the book for review by the publisher. I was not required to give any specific kind of feedback whatsoever.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

SDG.

——

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.

Dinosaur Eggs: A serious problem for a young earth flood scenario

Young Earth Creationism is usually paired with some form of flood geology–the notion that Noah’s flood was a global disaster which can account for most, if not all, of the fossil record and stratification of rocks. There are many problems with such a scenario, but for now I want to focus on one: dinosaur eggs.

The Problem Stated

Abstractly, dinosaur eggs aren’t really a problem: they could have been washed away in a global flood or rapidly covered by sediment, thus burying them and having them ready to begin fossilization. Problem solved, right?

As usual, though, the fossil record doesn’t align with such a simple explanation. I was reading Giants of the Lost World, a book by Donald R. Prothero about the history of several huge species that once inhabited South America, and came upon an intriguing passage about a specific find of dinosaur eggs. This find is called, with tongue firmly planted in cheek, “Auca Mahuevo” (to make a reference to contracting the spanish words for “more eggs”). Situated in a region called Auca Mahuida in Argentina near an extinct volcano, the site has revealed an abundance of fossilized dinosaur eggs, including several spectacular finds in which the embryo can be seen inside the egg.

The fossil site is one in which clutches of eggs–between 15-34 eggs in each–were laid in clumps that suggest sauropod nesting sites. There were few crushed eggs, which “suggest[ed] that the site had been protected by the mothers guarding the perimeter but not walking among the eggs once they had been laid…” (33). But here’s where it gets especially interesting for the topic at hand:

The remarkable preservation of the eggs was due to the fact that large flash floods had buried the eggs–and had done so many times, because there were multiple egg layers in the rocks, covering a total thickness of 25 meters (75 ft). (33)

To say that this offers an enormous problem for a global flood scenario as the explanation for all of these eggs is an understatement. This site is evidence that there were multiple periods in which a group of sauropods came to an area, nested, laid eggs, some flash flood occurred that buried them in mud or other sediment, and then the sauropods laid more eggs at a later time in the same area, only to have it happen again. The young earth creationist scenario insists that rapid flooding is required for fossilization, and that is what occurred here, but it occurred at several distinct times, in layers upon layers of eggs.

Possible Young Earth Explanations and More Problems

One possible counter to this is for the young earth creationist (YEC) to assert that these eggs were simply all jumbled together from a single or several sites in the chaos of the flood waters, tossed with mud and left to fossilize. But the lack of crushed eggs, uniformity of species, and organization of the nests all work against such a scenario. If the flood was as turbulent as many flood geology scenarios suggest, how would the eggs have ended up in nests at all? Indeed, if the explanation is that they got jumbled together in the wet silt of the floodwaters, how could the structures of the nests have been preserved on multiple layers? And again, if these eggs just happened to get tossed together, why aren’t they cracked or smashed–how do they still have embryos inside?

Some young earth scenarios include dinosaurs fleeing the rising flood waters only to finally stop to lay eggs in a rush, only to flee on. But this site does not allow for such an explanation, as it shows multiple distinct nesting periods that were covered up over time. The YEC may counter by saying that multiple different dinosaurs fled past the area and just happened to lay their eggs on this site after mud and rain had covered the previous nests, but this doesn’t account for the lack of trampled eggs and the care in which they were organized, as above, suggesting a perimeter being guarded by parents.

Conclusion

Fossil beds like this present an enormous problem for a young earth creationist scenario that relies on the flood to explain the fossil evidence. Time and again, those scenarios fail to account for the actual findings in the field and amount to nothing more than implausible scenarios requiring miracles unrecorded in the Bible to have occurred.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

What options are there in the origins debate? – A Taxonomy of Christian Origins Positions– I clarify the breadth of options available for Christians who want to interact on various levels with models of origins. I think this post is extremely important because it gives readers a chance to see the various positions explained briefly.

What is the relationship between Christianity and science?- An Overview of 4 Views– How should the Christian faith interact with science? Do they interact at all? I survey 4 major views on these and other questions.

SDG.

——

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.

Ted Chiang’s Religious Vision and Critique in “Exhalation”

Ted Chiang is one of the more well-known names publishing science fiction and fantasy short stories today. His short story, “Stories of Your Life” was the basis for the film “Arrival” (which I discussed here). His latest collection, Exhalation: Stories is another thought-provoking, moving collection of stories that will make readers think deeply about many questions. What struck me is that, despite Chiang being an atheist, his is remarkably knowledgeable about religion and, though he challenges various religious traditions at points, he also writes stories that resonate with them. I wanted to discuss his religious vision and critique in this book. There will be SPOILERS for some of these stories ahead.

Omphalos

Readers who have done a lot of digging into the esoteric origins of young earth creationism will recognize the title of this short story a nod to one of the most obscure but also earliest examples of young earth literature, Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot by Philip Henry Gosse. In Gosse’s book, written before the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, he argues that the fossil record was actually created with the appearance of age and thus doesn’t give evidence of the actual age of the earth. Gosse effectively introduced the argument of “appearance of age” into the young earth creationist repertoire of arguments for their position, and he did it before the evidence for evolution had reached the stage it has now.

In Chiang’s short story, he imagines a scientist interacting with the world that genuinely does appear to be young. In this world, fossils are found that show no evidence of prior age. Tree rings do not falsify a young earth. The evidence on the planet all gives way to yielding the result that the Earth really is young. But some evidence isn’t fixed. The multiplicity of language begins to show that it is from accident rather than by design. Moreover, some question comes into mind as to why the universe was created–was it really made for us, or for some other group of beings somewhere else? The evidence for the miraculous continues, but the purpose of the character we follow in the story begins to get called into question. This leads to the challenge that if this person was not created with a specific purpose, they are left to their own devices to find purpose, and they choose to search… for purpose.

“Omphalos” serves as a lens to question: what would it mean if the universe were not made for humans? (I don’t think it was, and wrote this article to that effect, though it has diverged some from my current views in 6 years.) Chiang’s story is a masterful look at how we might perceive the universe differently as what we think collapses around us. It also asks questions about purpose in a universe in which we don’t have our own, unique purpose. It’s a thought experiment but one that needs to challenge us.

The Merchant and the Alchemist’s Gate

The first story in the collection, “The Merchant…” is a series of smaller stories about how some different rings that allowed for time travel impacted people’s lives in a fantastic setting with explicitly Muslim religious expression. As the stories told by the merchant make the reader understand, the longing to be able to change the past and set events right to make up for mistakes is strong. But the concluding lines of the story make clear the point:

Nothing erases the past. There is repentance, there is atonement, and there is forgiveness. That is all, but that is enough. (36)

I have read this story before in another collection of Chiang’s, but it still struck me as forcefully as it did the first time. The deep yearning to change the past is found in so many of us now. But it is a longing we can’t fulfill. Yet even without magical rings that allow for time travel by passing through them, we can still find what is enough: repentance, atonement, and forgiveness.

Exhalation: Self-Destruction and Miracle

The title story of this collection, “Exhalation,” was a Hugo Award winner for best short story. In this story, there is a society of mechanical beings with brains that work based on pressure of the air. One of these beings discovers that its society is beginning to slow down in computations and the reason is due to the way they’re using their resources, pumping air from one place to another, which changes the air pressure and thus their capacities. From this, the being basically finds the second law of thermodynamics and posits that all things will eventually move towards equilibrium–dooming its society.

This short story has many intriguing threads. First, the notion of self-destruction by actions that are initially seen as good or profitable or beneficial. Clear parallels exist between this story and our own, as humanity continues to destroy the good creation of God through our own efforts to seek ease of transportation, luxury, and profit over all else.

Another startling aspect of “Exhalation” is the conclusion towards the end, that life itself is miraculous, because it manages to survive in a universe that is bent upon ultimately driving it out (the second law of thermodynamics means there will be an inevitable heat death of the universe). Life does seem to be a miracle: its diversity, persistence, the emergence of consciousness, and the very fact that life exists stand out. Though there may be natural explanations for these stages, the wonder of them cannot be totally explained in such naturalistic means. There is a sense of the miraculous in life.

Conclusion

There are many other themes found throughout this collection of stories, as well as his others. Questions about what it means to be a person; what mental life is like; how we destroy ourselves; and more. What are some themes you’ve picked up? What stories resonated with you? Check out Exhalation: Stories for some though-provoking stories.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

SDG.

——

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.

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and Creationism: An Unnecessary Match

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, at their 2019 convention, re-iterated an affirmation and strengthened adherence to statements about creation and evolution made previously by Synod bodies. Res. 5-09A, according to the report from the LCMS, restates the position of earlier statements in the Synod, including a 1932 doctrinal statement that states, among other things:

We reject every doctrine which denies or limits the work of creation as taught in Scripture. In our days it is denied or limited by those who assert, ostensibly in deference to science, that the world came into existence through a process of evolution; that is, that it has, in immense periods of time, developed more or less of itself. Since no man was present when it pleased God to create the world, we must look for a reliable account of creation to God’s own record, found in God’s own book, the Bible. We accept God’s own record with full confidence and confess with Luther’s Catechism: “I believe that God has made me and all creatures.”

In effect, the Resolution (Res. 5-09A) is a significant and modern reiteration of creationism within the LCMS, specifically of young earth creationism. Thus, it also more emphatically excludes and alienates those within the Synod who do not affirm such a position and who have explored the possibility of other positions within the church.

I believe God has made me and all creatures?

There are a number of problems, of course, with such a statement. The quote provided above issues a bald appeal to Luther’s Small Catechism with the statement that “I believe God has made me and all creatures.” On the surface, this appears to be an attempt to use that quote to support direct, fiat creationism. Yet when one reads the rest of that section of the Small Catechism, one finds that the same exact section also states “[God] also gives me clothing and shoes, food and drink, house and home, wife and children, land, animals, and all I have. He richly and daily provides me with all that I need to support this body and life.” Yet the LCMS is not also passing resolutions that affirm direct, fiat action by God in the providing of our clothes, food, drink, shoes, house, and home. They’re not passing resolutions in which Synod laity is expected to affirm that God literally created their clothing and gave it to them directly. But the Catechism does make those statements in the exact same context, without any such qualification. This means that the Catechism does not exclude means when it comes to divine providence regarding these matters. God uses means to provide us with food, home, and clothing. Similarly, God may have used means when it comes to “God made me and all creatures.”

The appeal to the lack of humans being present at creation cuts both ways. No member or pastor in the LCMS was present when God created the heavens and the Earth, so how is it that they may define in more exacting detail how God created them? Indeed, they say that we ought to look at God’s own record, which explicitly states that the heavens declare God’s glory. Scientists have looked to the heavens to see direct evidence of God’s glorious creation. Such evidence, God’s “speech” from the heavens (Psalm 19), points to a universe much, much more ancient than the six- to ten-thousand years most young earth creationists affirm, especially those who are so exacting in defining days as “6 natural days” (more on that below, though).

Six Natural Days?

The Resolution (5-09A) reiterates that creation is in “6 natural days.” But the fact is that the concept of a day as 24 hours is itself a giving into cultural norms of our own time. The length of a day has changed through history, as is demonstrable from such things as the variance in Earth’s rotation, tidal forces, and more can and have changed the length of the day, either permanently or for short periods of time (read more on this phenomenon here). Now, these fluctuations are extremely minor, so the objection may be lodged that this doesn’t impact the concept of a “24 hour day” or a “natural day.” Once one does admit that minor variations are acceptable, however, it becomes much less clear why major variations or even different meanings may not be explored. After all, nothing in the Bible states that God held the Earth in a completely still, static state as the creation week continued. It may be the case that even with a “standard” or “natural” day, the actual duration of each of the 6 days of creation could have varied. So, again, the very concept itself is flawed, for it both reads into the Bible things that are not there and ignores actual observational evidence that it is wrong. In attempting to circumvent science and purely affirm Scripture, the LCMS has fallen into the trap of bringing along scientific presuppositions that are hidden in the premises of their statements, thus doubling the error by both affirming a non-scientific viewpoint and smuggling in scientific assumptions that undermine their position.

Consequences of the Position

The fact is that the LCMS attempt to “take a stand” on this issue places it squarely and officially outside of any possibility for youths or adults to reconcile the official stance of their denomination with modern science. As someone who was within the LCMS and is no longer, I can say that this is one of the reasons I left. The total disregard for any viewpoint that went against a (then unofficial) stance on the timing and/or means of creation as well as the lack of regard for science generally was a massive difficulty for me within the denomination. Making this the official stance will do nothing but exacerbate that same concern for many, many more. I distinctly recall several conversations with other LCMS people, young and old, about how the denomination’s stance on creation was a significant hurdle for them in their faith life.

This is about much larger issues than whether the LCMS will lose or gain members; it is about the actual faith lives of those within the denomination. By drawing the wagons in tighter in the circle, the LCMS pastors have rejected the duty to be pastoral to their congregants and aligned their church body with a statement that cannot be reconciled with mainstream science with mountains of data and evidence to support it. Youths will be told that not to affirm this “6 natural day” creation is to oppose the Bible, and because the LCMS has so strongly emphasized that to believe as they do just is to trust the Bible, such a rejection will lead to crises of faith. As someone who experienced this in my own life, this is deeply disturbing and disappointing. The church body has effectively taken a stance on a non-essential that will lead to many questioning essential issues.

There are many, many more issues with the stance of the LCMS here, as well. For example, in my own experience I have seen several LCMS churches utilize program materials from creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis. Yet, for all the LCMS purports to value doctrinal purity and affirm centrally Lutheran beliefs, their support for groups like Answers in Genesis shows that the Synod is far more interested in aligning with broad evangelical theology than in maintaining a distinctive Lutheranism. The use of youth materials from Answers in Genesis is troubling, not only because it stands so clearly against modern science, but because Answers in Genesis also uses its website to promote non-and even anti-Lutheran positions on things like baptism. For example, a search for “baptism” on the Answers in Genesis Website yields immediate links like this one, a sermon from Charles Spurgeon, in which he states:

the very great majority of Christian people think infant children are fit and proper subjects for this ordinance [baptism]; we, on the other hand, believe that none are fit and proper subjects for the ordinance of baptism, except those who really believe and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour and their King.

Yet the LCMS, an unashamedly Lutheran organization, is perfectly willing to hold hands with an organization that promotes strictly anti-Lutheran materials as top results on its website? Why? Because, again, the LCMS has fallen into the trap of valuing evangelicalism and the narrative of the “culture wars” more than it values its own adherence to Lutheran doctrine. This strong and hard stance on young earth creationism is just one of the many results of such a capitulation, but it is also one of the most vehement positions the LCMS is promoting within its churchwide body.

A Personal Appeal

The LCMS recently published a report in which it was revealed that the “2017 Confirmation Survey identified around a 1-in-3 rate of retention for individuals after confirmation” in the LCMS. This number spawned a number of discussions and responses to it. One such response, the “Executive Summary” of the survey, stated as a category that “Congregations must be safe places for young people to wrestle with life and faith in order for them to faithfully reach out to today’s culture.” Taking such a hard stance on a scientific issue that the LCMS is unwilling or unable to actively engage with (as shown by reliance on outside resources like Answers in Genesis) is the exact opposite of being a “safe place for young people to wrestle with life and faith…” It was not a safe place for me, personally, as I dealt with some of these difficult topics. I came very near to leaving the faith entirely, and it was ironically an LCMS person who said that Jesus resurrection didn’t hinge upon whether the Earth was 10,000 or 10 billion years old that helped me rethink my faith. But now, the LCMS has made even that slight possibility outside the bounds. Their statement has tied people’s faith with the age of the Earth, and that should not and must not be the foundation for any Christian faith whatsoever.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Gregg Davidson vs. Andrew Snelling on the Age of the Earth– I attended a debate between an old earth and young earth creationist (the latter from Answers in Genesis like Ken Ham). Check out my overview of the debate as well as my analysis.

Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye- An analysis of a lose-lose debate– In-depth coverage and analysis of the famous debate between young earth creationist Ken Ham and Bill Nye the science guy.

SDG.

——

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.

The Age of the Earth: How Interlinking Evidence from Tree Rings, Carbon-14, and Varves demonstrates an old earth

Image from Wikipedia. Credit: By Copyright © National Land Image Information (Color Aerial Photographs), Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Attribution, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=28702247

What kind of evidence do we have to support the notion that the Earth is truly ancient? It’s a question I often get asked, as someone who came from a young earth background. Young Earth Creationists often posit that the evidence for an “old earth,” if viewed from a different angle, could just as easily (or perhaps better) point to a young earth. However, there are some aspects of evidence for an old earth that seem to defy this argument, particularly because they interlink in such a way that independently points towards an old earth. Here, I take a look at an article by Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth in which they make this very argument. Below is the title and abstract.

Testing and Verifying Old Age Evidence: Lake Suigetsu Varves, Tree Rings, and Carbon-14
Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth

Abstract
Carbon-14 measurements from layered sediments collected in 2006 from Lake Suigetsu, Japan, together with tree-ring data, offer an unprecedented opportunity to demonstrate how competing old- and young-earth hypotheses can be quantifiably tested. Conventional observation of radioactive decay rates, atmospheric carbon-14 production, tree-ring growth, cross-dating, and varve formation yields a narrow range of expected values for the carbon-14 content of samples over the last 50,000 years. Young-earth challenges to each observation should result in specific and predictable departures from conventional expectations. This article documents a sequence of tests to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that carbon-14 decay rates have remained unchanged, estimates of past atmospheric production rates are accurate, cross-dating of tree rings is reliable, the sampled trees have grown one ring per year going back more than 14,000 years, and finely layered sediments from Lake Suigetsu were deposited annually going back more than 50,000 years.

Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth, in this paper, analyze three independent lines of evidence that interlink to confirm each other. Specifically, by looking at tree rings, varve formation, and carbon-14 dating, they yield a range of possible dates that matches across these independent variables. This gives a strong confirmation of the age of the earth, along with demonstrating that the decay rate of carbon-14 does not seem to have changed and remain accurate for more than 50,000 years.

The importance of this paper, and arguments like it, is that these are independent lines of evidence that all interlink to show the same conclusion. This needs to be emphasized, because young earth creationists will often call into question these pieces of evidence individually, shooting them down with objections that they then conclude shows they are individually faulty. Rarely, if ever, do young earth creationists acknowledge or deal with the fact that these evidences, while being independent, yield results that all add up to the same ages. Again, the importance of this cannot be understated, because it would mean that, for whatever reason, the young earth creationist must then assert that their independent objections to each individual dating method also can somehow explain why those dating methods to which they are objecting yield the same results.

Tree Rings

Trees record the years they’ve been growing through rings that show how quickly their cells grew during different seasons. A record of years can be traced by comparing tree rings to show wet/dry seasons that form something similar to a bar code type pattern allowing for identifications across years. The oldest living trees have 5000 years recorded, and fossilized trees can be compared to living trees to extend that record back further, with the oldest reliable comparison yielding 14,000 years. Young earth objections to tree rings typically center around the notion that multiple rings form in single years.

Carbon-14 Dating

Wolgemuth and Davidson write that, in regards to Carbon-14 dating:

The primary requirements for determining age are (1) a constant radioactive decay rate, (2) knowledge of the original carbon-14 content, and (3) quantification of any old carbon that may have been incorporated into the specimen.

Standard young earth objections are leveled at each of these three requirements. However, it is rarely (if ever–though I’m sure someone does, somewhere) disputed that certain dates are yielded when Carbon-14 testing is done. Thus, it is the young earth objections to the three requirements where they rest their case. These objections are often that we cannot know whether the radioactive decay rate changed in the past; (less typically) that the original carbon-14 content is in question; and that the samples are somehow contaminated. Now, Wolgemuth and Davidson do clearly state that scientists must account for some known factors that can vary how quickly Carbon-14 is formed. But these can be accounted for and allow scientists to get fairly accurate data on dating samples.

Image source: http://www.suigetsu.org/varves.html Used under fair use. Accessed January 2019

Varves

Probably the least familiar of these dating methods to anyone with a passing interest in the age of the earth is varves. These are sets of alternating layers formed by sediment on the floor of bodies of water due to a number of factors. With Lake Suigetsu in mind, the method of dating involved is a measurement of algae blooms via examination of the varves. At this lake, cores have yielded dependable rates that allow dates traced back to around 150,000 years.

Independent Methods, Same Results

Where this gets interesting, and where young earth creationists ought to take note, is that while it is somewhat easy to discount individual pieces of evidence based on independent objections, it is much more difficult to do so when these allegedly faulty dating systems yield the same dates.

Carbon-14 dating methods allow scientists to make predictions for how much Carbon-14 ought to be present in a sample before testing the sample. Thus, scientists can use these predictions to chart what the expected Carbon-14 content of tree rings or varves will be. The article has just such a chart, yielding a very narrow range of expectations regarding Carbon-14 content with the age of the sample. They can then take tree rings, going with the conventional assumption that the rings indicate years, and sample them for Carbon-14 to see if they match the expectations of carbon dating. What is remarkable (visually, especially, again, see the article) is that these expected ranges correspond exactly to the samples taken of tree rings. This means that a tree ring yielding an age of 14,000 years due to the number of rings also yields an age of 14,000 years when sampled for Carbon-14. But these dating methods are completely independent. The Carbon-14 date doesn’t rely at all on the number of rings in a tree, nor is reverse true.

Wolgemuth and Davidson then show the expectations from a young earth model with explanations of tree rings. For example, the expectation of multiple rings per year is tested and falls well outside the predictions of the Carbon-14 dating. This is important, because it means that the conventional assumptions about testing dates align together independent dating systems while young earth predictions yield wildly dissimilar results. These results are presented in the paper.

Scientists go further, though, and can line these evidences up with varves of Lake Suigetsu. Here, there is some technical data about how scientists can determine when significant events happened in the lake, such as extreme algae blooms or additional brackish water, but the core of the point is that when these factors are accounted for, a predictive range for Carbon-14 can again be made and set alongside the age estimate based upon the varve samples. Once again, when aligned, there is remarkable correspondence between Carbon-14 expectations and the actual measurements set alongside the varve-counting method of dating. Additionally, note Wolgemuth and Davidson, there is a steady decline backwards in the amount of Carbon-14 present, showing not a wildly erratic decay rate but rather a steady and predictable rate as one goes deeper into the sediment of Lake Suigetsu. These predictions falsify a young earth account, in part, because the young earth model “expects… massive sediment deposits during the flood year…” in addition to other expectations of many flood models for a young earth.

Next, Wolgemuth and Davidson turn to combining all of these lines of evidence together, demonstrating that the period of overlap where we can measure tree rings, varves, and Carbon-14 yields a graph just as predicted by conventional expectations, and that varves and Carbon-14 can be plotted much farther (due to their availability and the lack of reliable tree ring data older than 14,000 years), showing a constant alignment of these independent forms of evidence.

The authors state the decisiveness of this data and its implications for models of the age of the earth quite well:

we have two options. Option 1 is that God gave us amazing tools to test and verify that carbon-14 decay rates have not changed and sediments in Lake Suigetsu have been accumulating for more than 50,000 years. Option 2 is that God precisely manipulated multiple independent phenomena—tree ring growth, atmospheric carbon-14 production, and sediment couplet formation—to mimic conventional expectations.

More Methods of Dating

Wolgemuth and Davidson don’t leave the evidence there, however, because more methods of dating can converge on Lake Suigetsu, allowing for additional independent dating. Argon-Argon dating from volcanic ash in the Lake yields a radiometric test that corresponds to Carbon-14 dating and tree ring data.

They note that most young earth creationists don’t object when Carbon-14 dating is used on things that corroborate biblical materials, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Yet when one puts the data point for the Dead Sea Scrolls alongside the tree ring carbon data, we find that there is, again, alignment between the Carbon-14 dating for the tree rings, the actual counting of the tree rings, and the age of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This would mean that some form of manipulation of dating systems would have to yield the correct date for the Dead Sea Scrolls but incorrect dates by counting tree rings and Carbon-14 despite the fact that these align perfectly with the data for the Dead Sea Scrolls. And with this latter data, again, Argon-Argon dating with radiometric dating can be incorporated to show yet another independent method of dating.

Conclusion

Young earth creationists have not dealt with the fact that it is not just independent methods of dating that yield similar dates but rather that these independent methods correspond with each other and back each other up. On a young earth reading of the evidence, there is no explanation for why the allegedly mistaken methods of counting tree rings, varves, measuring Carbon-14 dating, and Argon-Argon dating from volcanic ash should all correspond with the same dates. After all, each of these is taken to be independently mistaken for different reasons and at different rates. But if that’s true, then the observed data should be completely different from what it actually is. Additionally, the alleged accuracy for dating things in biblical archaeology is generally conceded by young earth creationists, and this dating for biblical artifacts also corresponds to other dating methods. Thus, the accurate date of the Dead Sea Scrolls corresponds with the allegedly inaccurate methods of tree ring counting, varve counting, and radiometric dating. What possible reason could there be for this to be the case? Going back to the words of Wolgemuth and Davidson, the most reasonable explanation is that God has given us the tools to study creation, and that these tools give us an accurate record of earth’s history.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

What options are there in the origins debate? – A Taxonomy of Christian Origins Positions– I clarify the breadth of options available for Christians who want to interact on various levels with models of origins. I think this post is extremely important because it gives readers a chance to see the various positions explained briefly.

What is the relationship between Christianity and science?- An Overview of 4 Views– How should the Christian faith interact with science? Do they interact at all? I survey 4 major views on these and other questions.

SDG.

——

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.

“The Rocks Don’t Lie” by David Montgomery: Chapters 8-10

After a 5 year hiatus, I decided to continue my look at David Montgomery’s work, The Rocks Don’t Lie. For a refresher, the book is from the perspective of a geologist as he looks at Noah’s flood in light of geology, but he also includes material on contemporary accounts and some reflections on faith.

Chapters 8-10

There is no question that there are flood stories across many times and cultures. Indeed, some young earth creationists cite this as the single best evidence for a global flood. What is most interesting, however, is the total similarity between some earlier flood stories from the same Ancient Near Eastern time and place as what the Noahic deluge story would later originate. Montgomery surveys this early history, noting the amazing discovery of more ancient flood myths in Sumerian writings. At least 3 different flood stories were discovered in these ancient fragments, and they yielded many similarities with the biblical flood account (153ff). Alongside discoveries like this, the rise of deism threatened Christianity and led to some reactionary responses to both the discoveries and the age. On the other hand, many Christian theologians moved to see Genesis as “a synopsized or allegrical explanation of how the world came to be rather than a comprehensive history of everything that ever existed” (167).

Other issues with the Genesis flood account as history began to be realized by other Christian theologians. The question of how to fit all the animals on the ark became a major issue (169). Some began to abandon both the idea of a local flood as well as the idea of a global flood, seeing the story as a theological point rather than literal history, though the idea failed to gain much steam (170). Another response was more reactionary and came with it the rejection of much of the evidence against a global flood–the birth of the creationist movement.

Montgomery interacts with modern creationism by pointing to the Creation Museum from Answers in Genesis, noting how much of the alleged evidence presented there is in stark contrast to what we can learn from geology now. After a brief look at the museum, he looks at the history of modern creationism, noting, as many others have, its roots in Seventh Day Adventism and reactionary fundamentalism. Time and again in the history of creationism, Montgomery notes how science has been misrepresented or ignored. For example, he uses a graph showing radiocarbon dating and its correlation with known samples, demonstrating the reliability of the method for certain ages (192-193).

These chapters once again show the range of Montgomery’s book and the importance of looking into many different angles of investigating the flood and other biblical accounts. It isn’t enough to just do what so many creationists insist upon and just read the accounts at a surface level, importing our own assumptions about what the text should mean and say as we go. The fact that many flood stories predate the biblical story and share details must lead one to account for that in their worldview. Similarly, a reactionary approach will not do.

Links

“The Rocks Don’t Lie” by David Montgomery: Preface and Chapter 1– Montgomery surveys the intent of the book and how his own investigation of the flood led him to some surprising results. He expected a straightforward refutation of creationism, but found the interplay with science and faith to be more complex than he thought.

“The Rocks Don’t Lie” by David Montgomery: Chapters 2-3– First, Montgomery gives a survey of the basics of geology. Then he notes some serious problems with young earth paradigms related to the Grand Canyon and fossils in the Americas as well as on mountains.

“The Rocks Don’t Lie” by David Montgomery: Chapter 4– Montgomery surveys a number of early flood geological theories and shows how theological interpretations continued to change as evidence was discovered through time.

“The Rocks Don’t Lie” by David Montgomery: Chapters 5-7– A brief early history of the study of geology and paleontology is provided, and early theories about the flood begin to form alongside them.

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

SDG.

——

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.

“Jesus was a Young Earth Creationist” – A Problem

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female…'”  – Matthew 19:4 (NIV)
“But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’”- Mark 10:6 (ESV)

Jesus states here that God made human beings. These passages have been used for any number of exegetical points, but the one I want to focus on now is that of certain Young Earth Creationists. Almost without fail, when I have a discussion about creationism and what the Bible says about creation, it is asserted that “Jesus was a young earth creationist.” When I ask for evidence of this claim, one (or both) of these verses inevitably are raised. But the question is: do these verses actually say what Young Earth Creationists (YECs) want them to say?

The implication the YEC wants to take from these verses is that humans were on the stage at creation, so there could not have been any millions or billions of years of time from the start of creation until humans arrived on the scene. Thus, by saying that “at the beginning” or “from the beginning of creation” humans were created and on the Earth, the YEC argues that Jesus was endorsing and giving evidence to their position.

It ought to be clear from this that the YEC must read these verses quite literally for this implication to follow. After all, the point of this passage is definitely not to speak to the age of creation–Jesus is making a point about divorce in context. Thus, to draw from these passages a young earth, the YEC must insist on a strictly literal reading of the passage and then draw out the implications from that literal reading. The problem for the YEC, then, is that on a strictly literal reading of this passage, the implication becomes that Jesus was mistaken; or at the least, that the YEC position is mistaken on the order of creation.

Read the passages again. They don’t merely say that humans were created in the beginning. Rather, they clearly state that God created them male and female “at the beginning” or “from the beginning of creation.” This must not be missed. A strict literal reading like the one required for the YEC to make their point from these passages must also take literally the word beginning. But if that’s the case, then it becomes clear the YEC reading of this passage breaks down. After all, humans in the Genesis account were the last of creation. They were the final part of creation. But these passages say at the “beginning” not at the “end” of creation. So if the YEC insists that we must take these words as literally as they want us to in order to make their point that Jesus is a young earth creationist, they actually make either Jesus, Genesis, or their own reading of the creation account wrong. Again, this flows simply from the way the YEC insists upon reading these texts. If Jesus says that humans were made at the “beginning” of creation and Genesis literally teaches that humans were the end of creation, then something has to give.

Counter-Argument

The most common objection I’ve gotten from YECs as I make this point is that my own position still would not be justified in the text. After all, if the Earth is really billions of years old, and most of that time lapsed without any humans being around, why would Jesus then say that “at the beginning” or “from the beginning of creation” humans were around? A fuller answer to what Jesus is saying in these passages is found in the next section, but for now I’d just say it is pretty clear that Jesus is making a point unrelated to the time of creation and simply using language anyone would understand. “Back in the day”; “ever since humans have been around”; “for as long as anyone knows about”; these are ways that we can make similar ideas shine through. Moreover, because a strictly literal reading of this passage to try to rule out any time between creation and humans implies the difficulties noted above, it is clear that such a reading is untenable.

A Proper Interpretation?

The final point a YEC might try to counter here would be to demand my own exegesis of this text. After all, if they’re wrong about how to read the text, how do read it such that it doesn’t make the same implications? That’s a fair point, and I’ve already hinted at my answer above. It is clear these texts are about divorce, as that is the question that Jesus was addressing. Thus, he’s not intending to make a statement about the age of creation or really its temporal order at all. He simply says “from the beginning” as a kind of shorthand for going back to the first humans. Humans, Jesus is saying, have been created like this ever since God made them. Period. The problem the YEC reading brings to this text is nonexistent, but only when one does not try to force it to answer questions it wasn’t addressing.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

What options are there in the origins debate? – A Taxonomy of Christian Origins Positions– I clarify the breadth of options available for Christians who want to interact on various levels with models of origins. I think this post is extremely important because it gives readers a chance to see the various positions explained briefly.

Origins Debate– Here is a collection of many of my posts on Christianity and science.

 

SDG.

——

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.

 

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

Join 2,611 other followers

Archives

Like me on Facebook: Always Have a Reason