There’s No Such Thing as Creation Science–There’s Just Science

Scientific theories should not have religious import.  This may certain have tensions with Augustinian science but religious import is much more than mere metaphysical import.  Religious belief imports something that is considered to be internally authoritative (as in within that system of belief–though I don’t believe it will ever conflict).  The applicability of some of the beliefs may be universal but using religious belief as a grid for interpreting what is and what is not science is methodologically irresponsible.  Religious belief is not itself scientific but may have scientific beliefs and in sync with science.  There’s a categorical difference.

For instance, using Scripture to interpret science or empirical data is circular in its reasoning.  Scripture would already have the conclusion and then uses the reasoning process to conclude with that Scripture may be advocating.  Since I’m coming from a religious perspective I would argue that science and Scripture are harmonious and congruent.  It’s necessary to have a scientific understanding of nature and agency prior to interpreting Scripture.

The Timeline of Creation

The following is a timeline for creation laying out the distinct and important moments from a scientific and biblical perspective.  For more of my posts on creation please see:

1. Were the Days of Creation Long Periods of Time or 24 Hours?
2. The Sixth Day of Creation Was Just Too Long to be 24 Hours
3. Is There Scientific Evidence for Young Earth Creationism?
4. Why I Believe Young Earth Creationism is Simply Dead Wrong
5. Young Earth Creationism’s Interpolation
6. Yes, There Are Gaps in the Biblical Genealogies 

Were the Days of Creation Long Periods of Time or 24 Hours?

There are four literal interpretations of YOM (the Hebrew word for day).  The four definitions are (1) a portion of the daylight hours (2) the entire daylight segment of a twenty-four-hour day, (3) a twenty-four-hour day, and (4) a long but finite time period.[1]  Unlike the modern Hebrew and English, biblical Hebrew had no other word for a finite era or epoch. The figure of speech of “a day is like a thousand years” in 2 Pt. isn’t an issue, it’s a simile; I don’t advocate that 2 Peter permits and old earth interpretation in Genesis.  The four definitions of YOM are literal definitions; it’s unnecessary to say it’s non-literal.  Also, the issue of a numerical adjective in front of YOM, there is no such rule or law in Hebrew grammar that necessitates that YOM following a numerical adjective must be the twenty-four-hour interpretation of YOM.  The divisions of the days are “evening and morning” which signifies a division between the period of time (you’re going to have a hard time taking the text “literally” if you want to say there was evening and morning without a sun to make the distinguishing nature of evening and morning…).[2]  Even YEC’s must concede that the first three days of evening and morning are not used in the sense of referring to solar rotations, merely a division of time).  William Wilson, in his Old Testament Word Studies, explains that YOM is “frequently put for a time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration… Day [YOM] is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.”[3]  This is completely consistent with a kairological (differing from a chronological reading in that [Gr. kairos] it is a point of time specific to an event) reading of Genesis 1 as advocated by William Dembski in The End of Christianity.

Thoughts on Dembski’s The End of Christianity

The following is a review I did of Bill Dembski’s The End of Christianity a couple of years ago.

The book was a fairly light read, easy to get through, yet deep and informative at the same time. I would recommend this to those who are somewhat familiar with modern cosmology, geology, and theological exegesis. If you are an adamant young earth creationist you will either dislike this book or be engaged to find more answers (which ultimately he believes to be untenable). To state the theodicy in a nutshell, both natural and personal/moral evil is a result of the Fall and God acted in anticipatory manner, though retroactively, to show the gravity of sin. I appreciate Dembski’s attempts to reconcile evil with sin and to exalt God’s grace and glory in the midst of suffering and evil.

The Sixth Day of Creation Was Just Too Long to be 24 Hours

The young earth creationist interpretation is internally inconsistent; it just doesn’t make sense.  Both earth and life exist before the sun, moon, and stars.  This leaves a person to wonder where heat, light, gravity, and earth’s rotation and orbital features came from prior to the fourth creation day.  Let’s look at the sixth day.  How in the world did Adam do so much?  Here’s a list of the events of day six:

1. God creates the various living creatures along with wild animals and animals that become domesticated [nephesh/soulish creatures] (Genesis 1:24-25).
2. God creates Adam in the divine image (Genesis 1:26-27; 2:7).
3. God gives Adam a mandate of dominion over creation (Genesis 1:28).
4. God makes the plants available as a food source for man (Genesis 1:29-30).
5. God plants a garden and puts the man in it (Genesis 2:8).
6. God gives Adam instruction concerning obedience to God’s specific commands (Genesis 2:9, 16-17).
7. God commissions Adam to cultivate the garden (Genesis 2:15).
8. God commissions Adam to name or classify the animals (Genesis 2:19-20).
9. God declares Adam’s need for a suitable helper (Gen. 2:18, 20).
10. God induces sleep and performs surgery on Adam (Genesis 2:21).
11. God creates Eve (Genesis 2:22).
12. God ordains that Adam and Eve enter into a divinely constituted marriage relationship (Genesis 2:23-25).

Is There Scientific Evidence for Young Earth Creationism?

To answer the question, “Is it surprising that scientific evidence supports a young earth perspective?” I would respond saying that I would almost consider this a loaded question.  I don’t think I can find no evidence for a young earth; however, I find the record of nature to support the proposition that the universe is old (billions of years) by overwhelming evidence.  There is hardly any evidence for a young earth, if indeed there is any at all.

Before getting to the geologic record of nature one needs to address the cosmological record of nature (the earth cannot be older than the universe).  I initially gained my interest in cosmology (and I must say I really enjoy discussing cosmology) was the Kalam cosmological argument, which is an apologetic argument for a beginning of the universe.[1]  I’ll put aside the mathematical and philosophical arguments for a beginning of the universe for that would be off topic and I’ll stick with the scientific evidence.  If one were to analyze an extrapolation of space and time then that initial singularity for the universe would take us back 13.73 GYA (giga, billion years ago).  There are many models of the universe such as the steady state, oscillating, quantum fluctuation, and other string theory models that coincide with former.[2]  The most prominent model with the most philosophical, mathematical, and scientific evidence is the standard model (due to cosmic inflation, the big bang).  Prominent cosmologist Paul Davies comments,

Yes, There are Gaps in Biblical Genealogies

There’s that one question that has plagued Christians on anthropological origins.  Many young earth creationists claim there cannot be any gaps in the genealogy, which is what leads us to dating the time frame of the earth being young.  Old earth creationists, like myself, believe that there are gaps in the genealogy. The question is whether it explains anything at all and how much does it explain?

The genealogies are adequate but not complete.  No matter how you read the genealogies, you must concede that there are gaps.  For example Mt. 1.8:

Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah.

However, 1 Chron. 3.10-12 reads it differently:

Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son, Jehoram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, Amaziah his son, Azariah [also called Uzziah] his son.

A Conversation With a Young Earth Creationist

The following is an excerpt of a conversation I had with a young earth creationist from about two years ago. This was soon after being falsely accused of positions I hold to and being called a heretic and non-Christian.  In this conversation I’m actually called a poor witness to Christ because of my views.  I’ve changed the name of the other student for confidentiality.  I know it may be difficult to have the full context but you should be able to pick up the jist of it as you read along.  Enjoy!

Jack, I appreciate that you feel I am a learned individual, but do you understand how seriously offensive your unsubstantiated accusations are?  (My name is not Maxwell).

QUOTE:

“First is an apology, I misinterpreted and claimed you believed in evolution (which is in fact heresy saying God is not the creator of the universe) when there is no evidence you actually. No you’re right, I with this new evidence it is not a dividing line between believer and non believer.”

I’m not an evolutionist, but theistic evolution does not deny God as creator of the universe.  You claim that there is no evidence for evolution.  I believe there is evidence for evolution and to totally dismiss it would be unwarranted.  You may not like their evidence, or believe the evidence is wrong, but you cannot simply dismiss it as “no evidence.”

Top Ten Philosophy, Science, and Theology Podcasts

The following are a list of podcasts that I’ve been following and listening to that have been quite helpful in my philosophical, scientific, and theological studies.  The criteria for consideration are based on 1) quality of content, 2) accurate presentation of the material, 3) constructive and respectful criticism of opposing views, 4) frequency of podcast release, and 5) a broad range of topics/issues discussed.

The Free Exchange in the Marketplace of Ideas

The English poet John Milton did well when he said that “Truth will rise to the top through a free and open exchange in the marketplace of ideas.”  I am so encouraged when I have and see a substantive dialogue with someone concerning an issue.  This is certainly important in every day discussions, blogs, and teaching.  I assist in managing and teaching an Intro. to Philosophy course at university and I always encourage my students to make us work hard to convince them of what we believe to be true.  Do not simply sit there and take what I say and teach prima facie–challenge me, challenge the thoughts, challenge your thinking.