Until the last couple of years, I was a lot like J. P. Moreland, who said something like, “Three days a week, I’m an old-earther. Three days a week, I’m a young-earther. The other day I don’t know what to think.”* Of late, however, I’ve been landing on the old-earth, Big-Bang, Hugh Ross-ish side of things more and more.
As I’ve stopped to think about why this is so, I’m not satisfied with the reasons I find. I think a combination of laziness and time-starvation has conspired to have me rely more on the credibility of the arguers (or at least, my perception thereof) than the content of the arguments. Let’s face it, the content of the arguments is going to take some time to digest and consider, so I’ll cut myself some slack on not having taken it all in. Still — I need to have better arguments than:
1. So-and-so said thus-and-such.
2. So-and-so seems to be a boob.
3. Therefore, thus-and-such is false.
In other words, I’ve fallen prey to the genetic fallacy with regard to creation issues.
Consider the Sources
On the other hand… there is wisdom to be exercised when considering one’s sources. Here are the general observations I have made:
The young-earth crowd seems given to irresponsible measures. It’s an anecdotal observation that I can’t really back up in depth or detail right now, but I hope to… I have the impression that Answers in Genesis/Ken Ham, et al, tend to “bully” people into their side of the ledger. Here’s one from Ken Ham’s blog:
Sadly, when Christians tell people they can believe in the Big Bang, they’re also in essence saying, “You don’t have to take God at his word.” Such compromises undermine the authority of God’s Word in our Western nations.
In addition, Answers in Genesis was asked, “What are the most compelling scientific evidences for a young earth?” Their answers were liberally peppered with dissatisfying features like appeals to “strong exegetical arguments” — that were never given. I don’t think I’m misrepresenting the article when I say that their article on “the most compelling scientific evidences for a young earth” is largely uncluttered by compelling scientific evidences for a young earth. You’ve got the link; you decide.
Here’s an example that came from a different source, The Berean Call, that is typical of what I’m thinking of. If this is the best the young-earth party can offer, it would seem its emperor has no clothes to wear in the marketplace of ideas.
The old-earth crowd seems to be characterized by more responsible discourse. Again, this is anecdotal, and the sometimes-notable exception to this point is Hugh Ross (I think he has demonstrated a tendency to push his points too far). But you’ve got a pantheon of minds I admire — from Moreland and Craig to Hodge and Warfield — saying that you can, indeed, postulate a Big Bang cosmology and remain true to Christian orthodoxy — including the view that all Scripture is inerrant.
Simple Facts
As I see it, there are two simple facts (in many parts) to consider:
1. The Genesis 1 account, taken at face value, sure seems to say we’re looking at a Sunday-to-Friday sort of schedule.
2. Looking around at the universe, you see things like star light coming from millions of light-years away. Moreover, that star light is telling a story of what has been happening for the last several million years.
There are probably more “simple facts” worth including here, but those are the two that make this a really tough question for me right from the get-go.
Next Steps
So what’s an intellectual follower of Christ with limited time and attention (who has an affinity for modest claims) to do? If I just ride on my perceptions of credibility, I’m back to the genetic fallacy and my deck is sort of stacked in favor of an old-earth conclusion. So I intend to study the exegetical and hermeneutical questions first. First up: did Moses intend the six days of the Genesis 1 account as a complete and literal chronology of creation? Would the original recipients of the Genesis 1 account have understood it that way? What should govern our interpretation of this account?
Somewhere after that, I hope to figure out what to do with issues of natural theology — like star light and other cosmological food for thought. Along the way, I guess I’ll need to assess the content of the claims made by YEC’s and OEC’s (young-earth creationists and old-earth creationists), and see if I can draw some useful conclusions there…
Any reactions? What would be most helpful to me is if anybody can point me to some YEC types who are more responsible in their argumentation than what I’ve seen out of Answers in Genesis (or if AiG has a more winsome side to it, I’d love to see it!)
* I don’t have a citation for this sloppy Moreland “quote,” but I think I heard it from Brett Kunkle when he was filling in for Greg Koukl on a Stand to Reason show a while back.
Update (June 27, 2007): I found the proper quote from Dr. Moreland, emphasis added:
It is unproductive to try to believe something beyond your grounds for believing it and dishonest to act as if you believe something more strongly than you do. Overbelief is not a virtue. For example, I am far from certain on many Christian beliefs I hold. I lean toward the view that the days of Genesis are vast periods of time and not literal twenty-four-hour periods. But about two days of the week I flip-flop and accept the literal view. Based on my study, I cannot convince myself either way, and I’m about sixty-forty in favor of the old-earth position. Other beliefs of mine have grown in certainty over the years—that God really exists, for example. We should be honest with ourselves about the strength of our various beliefs and work on strengthening them by considering the issues relevant to their acceptance.
– J. P. Moreland, Love Your God With All Your Mind, p. 107
