hughbiquitous

Two items to add to my ongoing thinking-out-loud (#1, #2, #3):

Justin Taylor’s View

Justin Taylor lays his cards on the table as to his perspective on creation:

The “days” of Genesis 1 are analogical and anthropomorphic. God is portrayed as a workman going through his workweek, working during the day and resting for the night. Then on his Sabbath, he enjoys a full and refreshing rest. Our days are like God’s workdays, but not identical to them. How long were God’s workdays? The Bible doesn’t say. But I see no reason to insist that they were only 24 hours long.

I’m not sure about all the original-language work Taylor invokes — it’s not my specialty and I’m wholly dependent on the weight of authority here — but I appreciate the way he grapples with the text to see what it requires of the reader.

Old-Universe Consistency

I also came across this page by a UCLA professor which shows three independent observation-based methods for calculating the age of the universe. All three methods agree that the universe is something like 12-14 billion years old. And on top of all that, the theoretical model predicts an age of 13.7 billion years old.

This doesn’t settle everything once and for all. It just means that any young-earth position is going to have to account for three corroborating old-universe observations and refute the theoretical model that predicts the outcome that the observations do, in fact, deliver. The only alternative is to say that faith and reason don’t speak to each other.

A while back I “quoted” J. P. Moreland very casually that he went back-and-forth on the age of the earth. I came up with the proper quote:

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

This bears a distant resemblance to something I found by D. A. Carson (author’s emphasis):

Francis Schaeffer wrote a little book that I have often found useful in helping some Christians move beyond entrenched positions. That book was called Genesis in Space and Time. He asked, in effect, a simple question: What is the least that Genesis 1-11 must be saying for the rest of the Bible to cohere, for the rest of the Bible to make sense and be true? That is not the same as asking what is the most that one can reasonably infer from these chapters. Rather it is one particular application of the old analogia fidei argument: the appeal to “the analogy of the faith” as established by the rest of the Scriptures is one crucial way to let Scripture interpret Scripture.

Taken together, the wisdom of these sages heightens my interest in boundaries over answers. Here are some candidates off the top of my head:

1. Any explanation of the age of the universe must affirm the authority of Scripture.

2. Any explanation of the age of the universe must account for the fact that physical evidence exists that suggests an old universe.

3. Any explanation of the age of the universe must reconcile the testimony of Scripture with the physical evidence; neither fideistic nor naturalistic solutions will suffice.

That’s a start, but what I’m increasingly struck by is this: If both J. P. Moreland and D. A. Carson are slow to make ambitious, definitive claims about answers to the age of the universe, then who am I to do so?

I don’t even go by my initials!

In my last post I wished for an even-handed approach to the various theories about reconciling science and the Genesis account. I found one. Vern Poythress’ Redeeming Science is available online as a free PDF.

I’ve read bits and pieces and this is a great book. Of the portions I did read, the material on “Mature Creation” was probably the most fascinating. For anyone who thinks that it would be deceptive of God to create the universe with the appearance of age, consider this: was it deceptive of Jesus to turn water into wine, given that wine requires an aging process? (It was also the best wine at the party, and from what I know about wine, the older, the better.) I confess I’ve had hangups about the “appearance of age” issue, but after reading the chapter on that subject, it’s not such a big deal to me.

A word about the author… here’s what Justin Taylor has to say about Dr. Poythress:

At first glance one might think that a professor of NT is not qualified to write a theological treatise on science. But Poythress is not your normal NT prof. This man gives a new meaning to the word “smart.” He majored in mathematics at CalTech, then went on to complete a Ph.D. in mathematics at Harvard. After teaching math for a year at Fresno State and studying linguistics and Bible translation at the Summer Institute of Linguistics, he went to Westminster Theological Seminary, where he earned an M.Div. and a Th.M. in apologetics. He then went on to get an M.Litt in NT from the University of Cambridge. Between the M.Div/Th.M. and the M.Litt, he taught linguistics at the Summer Institute of Linguistics. He then earned a Th.D. in NT from the University of Stellenbosch in South Africa. For those who are counting, that’s one bachelors degree, three masters, and two doctorates.

Oh, and I’ve been told that while he was at Harvard he memorized virtually all of the NT.

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

It is not who is right, but what is right, that is of importance.

Thomas H. Huxley

Thomas Henry Huxley is an interesting character… Wikipedia has this to say:

[Thomas Huxley was] known as “Darwin’s Bulldog” for his defence of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. …Huxley did not accept many of Darwin’s ideas (e.g. gradualism), and was more interested in advocating a materialist professional science than in defending natural selection. …he believed that Darwin at least gave a hypothesis which was good enough as a working basis, even though he believed evidence was still lacking, and became one of Darwin’s main supporters…

And this is fascinating:

…he coined the term “agnosticism” to describe his stance on religious belief… Another significant advocacy of Huxley’s that is not seen today was his promotion for teaching the Bible in schools. This may seem out of step with his evolutionary theories but he believed that the Bible had significant literary and moral teachings that were quite relevant to English ethics.

He seems, at least from reading Wikipedia, to have been a fair-minded guy, ready to go wherever the evidence led him. I wonder what Huxley would think of the intelligent design debate: would he value what is right over who is right?

Would he, like the editors of today’s scientific journals, refuse to even countenance the publication of a scholarly article on intelligent design? (Hearsay: I’ve heard stories of people being fired for letting ID articles slip through…)

In closing, consider these further quotes from Huxley (emphasis mine):

Science seems to me to teach in the highest and strongest manner the great truth which is embodied in the Christian conception of entire surrender to the will of God. Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing. I have only begun to learn content and peace of mind since I have resolved at all risks to do this.

History warns us, however, that it is the customary fate of new truths to begin as heresies and to end as superstitions; and, as matters now stand, it is hardly rash to anticipate that, in another twenty years, the new generation, educated under the influences of the present day, will be in danger of accepting the main doctrines of the Origin of Species with as little reflection, and it may be with as little justification, as so many of our contemporaries, twenty years ago, rejected them. Against any such a consummation let us all devoutly pray; for the scientific spirit is of more value than its products, and irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors.

Sounds like my kind of guy!