Critique of Young Earth Creationism
Regarding the creation debate, I suggest seven safety rails that Christians ought to stay within in order to avoid hurting themselves and others. I argue we all should: (1) recognize the need for charity; (2) value the Bible as special revelation; (3) value science as general revelation; (4) acknowledge the limitations of science; (5) acknowledge a difference between the “Word of God” and interpretation; (6) affirm teleology; and (7) acknowledge a difference between primary and secondary causes.
Here is an evaluation of how Young Earth Creationism sits within these safety rails.
CRITIQUE OF THE YOUNG EARTH VIEW (A)
The Young Earth view is very strong on points two, four and six but weak on points one, three and five. Young Earthers claim to be most faithful to the Bible (point two). They typically will hold to full inerrancy and a very high-view of Scripture. They reject any attempt to dehistoricize people, places or events mentioned in Scripture. They are also quick to acknowledge the limitations of science (point four). For example, they often point to evidence of strong bias in radiometric dating techniques or anomalies found with archaeological strata that argue for rapid sedimentation. Young Earthers affirm God is an intentional Creator who directly created all lifeforms in kinds at the beginning (things did not gradually evolve). Thus, everything is seen as having distinct essence and a purpose/place within God’s created order (point six).
Young Earthers, however, tend to be the least charitable. In their zeal for protecting the Word of God from what they feel is compromise, they tend to personally attack proponents of the other views.[1] Some (but not all) tend to downplay the validity of science as a means of clarifying Scripture. They tend to think their view is the only possible valid interpretation of the “Word of God.”
Young Earthers’ zeal for a high-view of Scripture is commendable. However, it comes at the expense at times of charity. Young Earthers (of which I am/was) would do well to remember that science really can help shed light on the proper interpretation of biblical passages,[2]and remember to have charity in the areas of secondary issues. They should recognize that believing in an Old Earth is not necessarily some liberal conspiracy to water down a high-view of Scripture (ninety-percent of the signers of the ICBI were Old Earth).[3]
__________
- For the first twenty-five years of my Christian walk, I was a Young Earther (I still might be one). I myself was very uncharitable towards Old Earthers and personally understand how it feels to want to protect the Bible from people who want to “twist Scripture!” ↑
- It’s very important to remember the discussion from Rail 3: science helps clarify that the Bible cannot be teaching the sun revolves around a square earth that has trees with hands. ↑
- Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise: A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of “Progressive Creationism” (Billions of Years) As Popularized by Astronomer Hugh Ross, 2nd ed. (Powder Springs, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 2011), Kindle loc. 1398-1401. ↑