Contrary to the assertion by eight old-earth apologists, once any geologist accepts the proposition that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, he has committed himself to philosophical naturalism. Such a position rules out the miraculous and commits its holder to a version of history that excludes miracles.
David Campbell and his colleagues assert that acceptance of an old earth requires merely a challenge of the traditional interpretation of Genesis chapters 1 and 2--that is to say:
• A six-day creation.
• The formation from the earth of a fully-grown intelligent man, and one who, furthermore, already had a full command of language.
• An initial environment in which man and beast lived in perfect harmony.
• The absence of death in the world before the fall of man.
That last is the part of the Genesis story most relevant to this analysis. If death occurred several times over before the first appearance of man, then God was already guilty of mendacity when He said that "on the day that you (singular) eat of the tree [of knowledge of good and evil], you shall condemn yourself to certain death." The problem: man would already be condemned to death from the moment of his formation. The only resolution of this glaring contradiction is to regard those two chapters as mere parable.
Campbell et al. make much of the "overwhelming majority" of "those who claim belief in an inspired, inerrant Bible" who also believe that the earth is incredibly old. John K. Reed, of course, scathingly points out that truth is not determined by a vote, but by a careful weighing of evidence and an assessment of credibility of witnesses. This Examiner has previously presented evidence that clearly shows that the earth is young, not old.
That Campbell says that certain Christians (majority or no) "claim belief in an inspired, inerrant Bible" (emphasis added) is just as well. They claim that belief, but they do not demonstrate it. The Bible makes several specific statements that, taken together, imply a young earth, and those claims do not limit themselves to Genesis 1 and 2. They include:
• Genealogical records, king lists, and other event-specification intervals that allow a precise calculation of the year of creation. That year is 4004 BC, give or take 45 years.
• The story of the Global Flood.
The old-earth claim contradicts both these categories of statements. But if they are not true, then the Bible is in error. The failure to recognize that fact is the most serious logical flaw in the old-earth argument, even apart from the realization that the physical evidence is more consistent with a young earth than with an old one.
Today, Bobby Ross, Jr., writing in Christianity Today, took note of a related controversy involving, not the Presbyterian Church in America (of which Reed is a ruling elder), but the Society of Biblical Literature. Recently a Hebrew Bible studies professor from Berkeley resigned from the SBL and, in an opinion piece in Biblical Archaeology Review, decried the admission to the SBL of certain people to whose views he took exception. Perhaps purely in an exercise in enhanced sarcasm, the professor, Ronald S. Hendel, referred to "creationists, snake-handlers, and faith healers." In reply, Henry B. Smith, writing for Associates for Biblical Research, made clear what was wrong with Hendel's argument, and indeed with any a priori rejection of creationism: that it picks and chooses what parts of the Bible it will accept or reject, forgetting that the Bible stands or falls in toto.
This is the essence of the problem: one either believes in the Bible, and accepts it as fact--or not. No "middle ground" exists.
Like this article? Want to be notified of more? Click Subscribe, above.
Comments
You can certainly believe God created the world and let it run the way science says, but that God is not the God of Genesis. Once you accept that the Bible was written by men, and that the Old Testament was written by very primitive men, the illimitable possibilities of the unknowable Deity become evident.
Your comment could mean either way. Genesis had multiple scriveners, beginning with Adam and continuing with some of the key players in the Genesis saga, not least of whom were Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the logkeepers of Noah's Ark. As to "unknowable"--well, God does want to get to know you on an up-close-and-personal level. If you think that's incredible, you're in good company, for King David certainly thought so. "What is man, that Thou art mindful of him?"
So, axiomatically, you believe the laws of nature can be suspended at any time in order to produce miracles, right? And you further think that an absolute adherence to this belief is required in order to understand/believe what the Bible teaches?
>> even apart from the realization that the physical evidence is more consistent with a young earth than with an old one.
Only if you ignore pretty much all the evidence from all the sciences can you come up with tosh like this. Lying for Jesus again Terry? Shame on you!
The mistake you are making is that you cannot see the Bible as anything other than 'the wordd of god'. I'm sure that the Egyptians did the same for the Book of the Dead and the Mayans for their codices but wishing for something doesn't make it so. You commit the fallacy of special pleading in that you claim special status for your book without ever presenting independent evidence for it.
I'm not sure that there is much to this article. At least you have not strayed into areas where you obviously know very little, like science for example
Yes, Terry has now been reduced to circular reasoning and appeal to authority and nothing more. The very essence of apologetics.
Of course despite the fact that Terry has just claimed (in two or three articles now) that science doesn't work because God uses magic to do whatever it wants, I doubt this will stop Terry from claiming "scientific evidence" in further articles in future. Hypocrisy and logical contradictions are also creationist essentials.
Give a Creationist enough time, they will debunk themselves.
>>>"The old-earth viewpoint leads inevitably to naturalism"
Translation: Young Earth Creationism requires utter abject rejection of science cuz Goddidit with magic. However both theistic evolutionists and Old Earth Creationists will both be surprised to find out they're really atheists.
>>>"truth is not determined by a vote, but by a careful weighing of evidence"
See above. "Evidence is irrelevant". Of course in the real world, Genesis IS a parable and has no evidence to support it.
>>>"This Examiner has previously presented evidence that clearly shows that the earth is young, not old."
Lie.
>>>"The story of the Global Flood"
They cure cancer AFTER the Fall? I was unaware of this?
>>>"But if they are not true, then the Bible is in error."
The penny almost drops, doesn't it Terry?
>>>"physical evidence is more consistent with a young earth than with an old one."
Blatantly false.
>>>"that it picks and chooses what parts of the Bible it will accept or reject, forgetting that the Bible stands or falls in toto. This is the essence of the problem: one either believes in the Bible, and accepts it as fact--or not. No "middle ground" exists."
Yet despite this, you do EXACTLY THAT. The Bible makes no claim of how old the Earth is, that was purely Usshers assumption based on the genealogies. What's more, YOU YOURSELF reject Flat Earth and Geocentrism, which are both an inescapable part of the Bible (if taken literally).
So tell us, do you also believe in witches? And should they be killed?
Nick, where on earth do you read in the bible that the earth is flat???
Only a fool says in his heart there is no God, Ps. 14:1
Right one question Judy.
Should the bible to taken as a literal or poetic.
If it is literal as you and Terry seem to support then the Bible makes mention of the four corners of the earth. Globes don't have corners, circles don't have corners flat squares do however, and they have four.
Hush Judy, the men are talking.
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent" Tim, 2:12
Or was that not what you meant?
Judy, I would repeat them for you AGAIN like I did for you a few days ago, except that you never come back after you leave your comment. What's more, based on your comments your reading skills seem to be limited somewhat, as you seem to read things which are not said, or miss things that are.
I might also point out that merely repeating Bible quotes ad verbatim are irrelevant without evidence to support them, so while you think you are making a point, you really really are not.
What's more, I have not or ever in any of my posts here many any positive or negative claim on the existence of (a) God or lack thereof. So given this context, your quote REALLY makes no point.
"The old-earth viewpoint leads inevitably to naturalism"
You've got it bass-ackwards but that's understandable... provided someone starts with the conclusion before even looking at the problem.
Since the Bible is the word of god, why do you need all those scholars to pick , choose and interpret what it says? I've read some of the "interpretations" of YEC and OEC "scholars" as they tell their followers what the bible says, each with their own spin. It's heartening to see the Christians beginning to eat their own. One can only wish ...
"[A] careful weighing of evidence and an assessment of credibility of witnesses. This Examiner has previously presented evidence that clearly shows that the earth is young, not old."
Terry weighed the evidence and surprise, the bible is right. It was inevitable that Terry admit that his science is based on fallacy, fantasy, and fiction. Reality is NOT allowed.
I don't see that you have too much room to criticize the premise of this article. You in fact prove my point: old-earth you certainly are, but you're no creationist. You are a philosophical naturalist.
Similarly, many members of the Intelligent Design school make the same mistake. They think that what is loosely called "the scientific community" will accept them, and that does not happen.
Terry, 'Anonymous' may be a "philosophical naturalist" as you call it. However, based on the evidence available that's not an unreasonable position. Since your last three opinion pieces have rendered evidence moot.
ALL science however is not based on PHILOSOPHICAL naturalism, but METHODOLOGICAL naturalism, a subtle but important distinction. Hence why (non YEC) theists are perfectly capable of accepting scientific evidence and still believe in God. They're just smart enough to recognise that methodological "supernaturalism" doesn't work, because there is no such thing. You on the other hand can only rely on appeal to authority and personal opinion. And your (baseless) religious opinions are no better than anyone else's.
every side presents their evidence,
And as in most things one side has a plethora of evidence to present when compared to the other.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!