Why I'm still a Young Earth Creationist

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Why I'm still a Young Earth Creationist

Post by mattrose » Thu Nov 06, 2014 12:36 am

I've had, in the back of my mind over the past year or so, the question 'why am I still a young earth creationist?' The position is ridiculed all over the internet. It goes against not only scientific consensus, but seemingly that of biblical scholarship too. It's certainly not hip. I am thinking of writing an article on this question and wanted to express a few ideas.

It's NOT because...
1. It's NOT because I'm anti-science. I actually really enjoy science. I don't see science as a threat, at all, to my Christian faith. I favor finding out as much as we can about the world and following facts where they lead. I'm totally opposed to burying my head in the sand.
2. It's NOT because I'm unfamiliar with the arguments for other views. I know about The Gap Theory, the Day Age Theory, Theistic Evolution, Framework Hypothesis, the similarities and contrasts with creation myths of the Ancient Near East, etc.
3. It's NOT because I'm a fundamentalist that believes in always interpreting the Bible in a wooden literal way. I don't think the Bible is primarily a science book or a history book. I don't think it should be judged based on our modern ways of writing history.
4. It's NOT because I find ministries like Answers in Genesis super impressive. Frankly, I find them annoying sometimes. I think they are far too divisive on the issue, making it sound like anyone who isn't a young earth creationist has all but abandoned the Christian faith.
5. It's NOT that I think my faith depends on YEC being true. I really am open to one of the other theories persuading me. I don't consider it an essential component of my faith.

IT IS BECAUSE...
1. Basically, the best presentations/arguments I have heard have been by Young Earth Creationists. I can't change views until I hear better arguments. But almost all the other arguments I hear are either based on misrepresentations of YECism or they simply don't make the case they're trying to make (usually due to misunderstanding YECism...as in... yeah, we believe that too).
2. The common rhetoric of non YEC's is particular annoying to me. They just tend to use bully language. "Can't we just let YEC go?" "It's over" "YEC is a dinosaur" "It's so obvious". I'm constantly being told that all YEC are anti-scientific fundamentalists. I know that's not true, so the rhetoric leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
3. I have come to believe that the devil accomplishes far more systematically than individually. The pull toward theistic evolution (or anything other than YEC) almost seems satanic to me at times. IF YEC is correct, the devil must be laughing at how easy it is to get many Christians to switch their views simply by creating a scientific consensus on something and then applying pressure on the church to 'stay relevant'
4. I still think YEC is the best fit with New Testament theology. I think it is important that there was an Adam and an Eve. I think the account resonates with reality (it preaches well). It makes much sense of the grand narrative.
5. It's always bothered me how cheesy the dismissals of Genesis 1-11 are from non YECism. Stupid stuff like "Who did Cain marry w/o committing incest?" or "How do we reconcile Genesis 1 & 2 and their blatant contradictions?" To me, these are not very difficult problems to solve. And you can't just discount 1-11 when the family tree touches the characters in 12! Was Abraham real, but his father imaginary?

Most of my favorite Bible teachers/preachers/authors are NOT YECists (Steve seems to be the exception). But I haven't seen anything very persuasive to stop me from being one. I'm open. I've watched Jon Perry's videos. I don't think they make a better overall case than what I've heard my friend Chris Miller (a creationist speaker in my region) present a half dozen times.

dizerner

Re: Why I'm still a Young Earth Creationist

Post by dizerner » Thu Nov 06, 2014 5:04 am

[user account removed]
Last edited by dizerner on Sun Feb 19, 2023 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Why I'm still a Young Earth Creationist

Post by mattrose » Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:51 am

dizerner wrote:I can't help being skeptical that these factor in for you somewhere in the back of your mind, and the reason is not because I'm judging you, but because I can't see any other reason to hold to YEC.


And that is one of the reasons I want to put together some thoughts on this issue. I think it is a sad day when Christians can't dialogue without being skeptical that the other Christian is being honest about motivating factors!
Do you sincerely believe, that if you had no ulterior motive whatsoever, using science alone, you would come to the conclusion of a young earth over an old one? If you can answer yes to this, I can respect that.
I can't answer yes to that. Nor should you expect me too. We aren't a sola-sciencia people. If I was not a Christian I would probably not believe in a past global flood. Without a global flood, I would be more open to uniformitarianism over catastrophism in geology. I have access to different information about the past that helps me interpret the present.
Christians can witness the Gospel to the lost in a very annoying way. Shouldn't factoring truth involve laying aside annoyances to look at logic?
You're right on this. There are surely annoying tendencies on both sides of this debate (I even mentioned that I find some of the Young Earth Creationist ministry material annoying). My point was, though, that the 'main' arguments used by 'most' non YEC's seem to be bully-like rhetoric, not logical argumentation.
What if someone said, I don't simply believe old earth to stay relevant nor because of the scientific consensus, but because the evidence seems to strongly suggest it? Would you call that person a liar?
Of course not! I recognize that I may be misinterpreting the evidence (or that they may be). I recognize that my knowledge is partial (and their's is too). I would not automatically (unless given reason to) think they were deceiving me about their motivating factors.
What particular theological point do you feel rests on a young earth.
I don't think any point necessarily rests on it (as in theology being dependent on YEC). Otherwise I would consider this an essential issue. I think YEC 'fits best' with some important theological truths. I think it fits best with God's love (the most important theological truth), since other views necessitate millions and millions of years of death and decay. I think it fits best with our doctrine of sin coming through one man, since other views see lots of sin and violence in the world prior to the first humans. I think it fits best with a high Christology, since Jesus seems to have been a young earth creationist. I think it fits best with eschatology, since the Bible seems to speak of Noah's flood as a world wide judgment to be repeated in the future. I think it fits best with theological anthropology, since the Bible says humans alone were created in the image of God (did God just zap the first people with it after a long line of creatures almost genetically indistinguishable from their successors?). Those one's come immediately to mind.
Most young earth arguments seem to be presenting alternative explanations for things that look really, really old. I can understand the idea that looks can deceive but some of the arguments for age seem pretty convincing; do you disagree?
It is an attempt to frame the debate to insist that the earth looks old, in my opinion. I think we can agree that the earth looks messed up. From that point, there are two interpretations. Either the earth looks messed up because it is old OR the earth looks messed up because it has been through hell (in a matter of speaking). Some people look old beyond their years b/c they've been abused (or abused themselves). So it is NOT that 'looks can deceive.' It is that looks can be interpreted in multiple ways. Some of the arguments for age sound pretty solid, but it seems to me some of the arguments for young earth sound very solid too.
Would you never use the argument that there is a possibility God created an appearance of age, which would solve all dilemmas in a non-scientific way? I have a lot of respect for people that say "Yea, the science looks that way, but I simply put priority on Scripture," at least that is logically consistent.
This argument is all built on the rhetorical assumption that the earth looks very old. As I stated above, I think you're already into the realm of interpretation when state that as a fact. I don't subscribe at all to the argument sometimes used by YECists (ridiculously, in my opinion) that God purposefully made the earth look old to 'test' our faith. Science makes observations that are open to interpretation. In the world right now, one of those interpretations is rhetorically spoken of as synonymous with science.

Thanks for the feedback!

dizerner

Re: Why I'm still a Young Earth Creationist

Post by dizerner » Thu Nov 06, 2014 10:45 am

[user account removed]
Last edited by dizerner on Sun Feb 19, 2023 6:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Why I'm still a Young Earth Creationist

Post by TheEditor » Thu Nov 06, 2014 11:14 am

Hi Matt,
I have come to believe that the devil accomplishes far more systematically than individually. The pull toward theistic evolution (or anything other than YEC) almost seems satanic to me at times. IF YEC is correct, the devil must be laughing at how easy it is to get many Christians to switch their views


I can't say as I agree here. First, one would have to assume that belief in an "old earth" over a "young earth" would somehow involve salvation, otherwise, why waste time trying to get believers to jettison the "young earth" view? Second, it would seem that if an "old earth" paradigm is the correct one, the Devil would be laughing about how discredited Christianity looks to people scientifically inclined.

I think it fits best with God's love (the most important theological truth), since other views necessitate millions and millions of years of death and decay.


Could it be that in order for God to having everything "just right" He purposefully took His time? Allowed certain things to take their course? it wasn't as though He needed to be in a hurry to put humans here.

I think it fits best with our doctrine of sin coming through one man, since other views see lots of sin and violence in the world prior to the first humans.


You believe then that animals are capable of sin?

I think it fits best with a high Christology, since Jesus seems to have been a young earth creationist.


How so?

I think it fits best with eschatology, since the Bible seems to speak of Noah's flood as a world wide judgment to be repeated in the future.


Jesus as well as Peter also used Sodom as an example of destruction parallel to the final Judgement. Sodom was decidedly a "local" phenomena.

I
think it fits best with theological anthropology, since the Bible says humans alone were created in the image of God (did God just zap the first people with it after a long line of creatures almost genetically indistinguishable from their successors?).


This is an interesting question. When God said "Let us make man...." was the "men" "stuff" already there? As in, "Let me take these here peas and make some soup", or "Let me invent something called peas, and make soup out of them". Personally I'm comfortable with either narrative, as I don't think man had to be "unique" in looks or design to be "in the image of God"; they would merely need to be imbued with certain characteristics. But I'm not wedded to either view.

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Why I'm still a Young Earth Creationist

Post by robbyyoung » Thu Nov 06, 2014 11:30 am

dizerner wrote:Would you never use the argument that there is a possibility God created an appearance of age, which would solve all dilemmas in a non-scientific way? I have a lot of respect for people that say "Yea, the science looks that way, but I simply put priority on Scripture," at least that is logically consistent.
mattrose wrote:This argument is all built on the rhetorical assumption that the earth looks very old. As I stated above, I think you're already into the realm of interpretation when state that as a fact. I don't subscribe at all to the argument sometimes used by YECists (ridiculously, in my opinion) that God purposefully made the earth look old to 'test' our faith. Science makes observations that are open to interpretation. In the world right now, one of those interpretations is rhetorically spoken of as synonymous with science.
Hi Matt,

The "appearance of age", slant, should be, "Created with age" as a biblical fact. This should be in your "IT IS BECAUSE..." column for the obivious reasons below:

1. Adam & Eve were created with age.
2. All the plant & animal life was created with age.
3. The planet was created with age
4. Therefore, the universe was created with age.

It's not trickery, meant to deceive, rather God's exercise of power. The NT helps us see the validity in the "Obivious Age" question; remember when Yeshua multiplied "The Fish"? The fish were created out of thin-air! Is it safe to assume they were matured? How about "The Bread"? Again, out of thin-air! Wasn't this bread fully baked and matured?

I think this is one of the stronger, non-scientific, but biblical approaches to "the Age" slant.

God Bless.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Why I'm still a Young Earth Creationist

Post by mattrose » Thu Nov 06, 2014 2:39 pm

dizerner wrote: I wouldn't necessarily see it as a demonic plot simply that they feel compelled to use a naturalistic lens in their conclusions. That's simply how science works, because science necessarily cannot lead to metaphysical truths.
I think general naturalism is one of the systemic initiatives that the devil has worked into the modern world. The problem is not science (and how science works), but the expansion of scientific epistemology into non-scientific realms.
I've... had my conception of who God might be go outside my box more than a few times and maybe that combined with my respect for sincere scientific analysis makes me open to more ideas than I can even judge as a good thing or not.


Same here. One of the reasons why I find it annoying that all YECists are caricatured as stuck in the mud fundamentalists is that I'm an open theist, a partial preterist, an amillenialist, a (with nuance) pacifist, etc.
Hopefully you can manage to talk me back into the age old paths and straight ways of the Lord... I look forward to your article.
I have no real ambition to change people's mind on this issue to be honest. I'd be content simply to address the rhetorical atmosphere.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Why I'm still a Young Earth Creationist

Post by steve » Thu Nov 06, 2014 2:41 pm

Responding to Robby's post:

I don't think the "created with age" phrase is an improvement over "created with the appearance of age." Nothing is created with actual age, since age refers to how long something has existed, not how long it appears to have existed. Adam and Eve were not created with age, but they were created with adult functionality.

I believe that many things appear old to us because, judging by present circumstances, we don't know how such conditions can come into being except as the pinnacle of a long process. I believe that God made the universe, the world and life within it already functional. The other possibility is that, since God had no deadlines to meet, He made these things non-functioning (in terms of His intended eventual functions), and allowed them to find their way to functionality. I personally don't believe this for three reasons:

1) It is not the way inventors are generally motivated to do things (though God could be an exception, of course);*

2) The Bible's account of what God did is agreeable with my conclusion (in fact, it is the basis for my conclusion);

3) I don't think the natural evidence presented to me for evaluation points away from an initially functional creation.



*I say "motivated" because, of course, many inventors do reach their goals only after a long process of trial and error with non-functional predecessors to their final products. This is not due to any motivation on the part of the inventor to repeatedly fail, but rather due to the imperfection of his creative knowledge and engineering skill. Such deficiencies would not factor into God's design and execution of the creation, and any series of failed prototypes would have to be attributed to His delight in failure.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Why I'm still a Young Earth Creationist

Post by mattrose » Thu Nov 06, 2014 2:55 pm

TheEditor wrote:Hi Matt, I can't say as I agree here. First, one would have to assume that belief in an "old earth" over a "young earth" would somehow involve salvation, otherwise, why waste time trying to get believers to jettison the "young earth" view? Second, it would seem that if an "old earth" paradigm is the correct one, the Devil would be laughing about how discredited Christianity looks to people scientifically inclined.
Hey :) I will add some nuance here. I don't believe that the devil's tactic has been to convince Christians to compromise toward the world and give up their YECism. I am suggesting that one of the devil's strategies has been to create a worldview of naturalism that pulls all people in its direction. This plays itself out in such a way that Christians feel more and more ashamed of supernatural claims and are more and more led to believe in more naturalistic belief systems.
Could it be that in order for God to having everything "just right" He purposefully took His time? Allowed certain things to take their course? it wasn't as though He needed to be in a hurry to put humans here.
I could see some theological advantage to the old earth perspective (it certainly would seem to illustrate God's patience well). I just have a hard time fathoming how an all-wise God would pick a plan that involved millions and millions of years just to get to the point where some creature could seriously be called an image bearer of the Almighty. Certainly God would not have been dependent on doing it in this way, right?
You believe then that animals are capable of sin?
I wasn't very careful here in my wording. I didn't mean to say that other views see all sorts of sin before the fall. I meant to say that other views see lots of death and decay before the fall and do not think of these as effects of sin. I don't think that position is indefensible. I just think it makes better sense of Scripture to say that all death and violence come as a consequence to sin.
How so?
Are you asking how I come to the conclusion that Jesus was a young earth creationist? I think that his statements most readily lead me to believe that Genesis 1-11 were genuine history, not myth.
Jesus as well as Peter also used Sodom as an example of destruction parallel to the final Judgement. Sodom was decidedly a "local" phenomena.
No, I think I could make a solid biblical case that Sodom is used as an example of judgment moreso than worldwide judgment. I think Noah's flood is used as an example of worldwide judgment. And certainly it reads like a worldwide judgment. But I am going off of a gut feeling. I have not taken the time to pursue your suggestion.
think it fits best with theological anthropology, since the Bible says humans alone were created in the image of God (did God just zap the first people with it after a long line of creatures almost genetically indistinguishable from their successors?).
I don't think man had to be "unique" in looks or design to be "in the image of God"; they would merely need to be imbued with certain characteristics. But I'm not wedded to either view.

Regards, Brenden
But if God was just going to zap some human like creature with the 'image of God' characteristics after millions of years... what was the point of those millions of years? If the millions of years didn't bring about what God purposed, why use that system? Seems like a terribly inefficient delivery system... it takes millions of years and doesn't produce what was intended with a supernatural act anyways!

Thanks so much for the feedback/dialogue!

EDIT.... I would concur with what Steve said in response to Robby's post.
Last edited by mattrose on Thu Nov 06, 2014 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Why I'm still a Young Earth Creationist

Post by robbyyoung » Thu Nov 06, 2014 2:57 pm

steve wrote:I don't think the "created with age" phrase is an improvement over "created with the appearance of age." Nothing is created with actual age, since age refers to how long something has existed, not how long it appears to have existed. Adam and Eve were not created with age, but they were created with adult functionality.
Oh Steve, I think your pushing semantics with this functionality spin. I'm not positive on the issue yet, so help me and explain the functionality of created ROCK? You know an ordinary ROCK?

Thanks.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Robby Young
U.S. Army Retired

Post Reply

Return to “Creation/Evolution”