Evidence for God from Science

My question is for anyone. OEC, YEC, or any other Creation model. How did you get to the point which you believe what you do? I'll start with why I lean to the side of Day-Age. I listened to people like Ken Ham, Henry Morris and other YEC'S who claimed to be Christian. They seemed to say that if one didn't believe in a young earth, one would have to(by default) believe in billions of years of evolution. I bought and attempted to read "the Genesis Flood", but really couldn't seem to get what it was saying. Then one day while listening to a talk radio show, the issue of what day in Genesis means came from a Jewish Rabbi. He said that The word for day(yom) could mean a long period of time. "WHAT!" I said to myself, that maybe not every astronomer and scientist is conspiring to wipe out Biblical Christianity after all. Maybe they are actually looking for the truth in their studies. That got me to study the subject on my own(become a Berean). Thanks for your honest responses.

I had several things come together for me in this area. I was raised until I was 12 in the Anglican Church in Canada. Creationism wasn't a particularly big theme for me there being raised. I had an uncle who took a personal interest in me and he got me involved in astronomy so much so that I joined and was a junior member of the Astronomical Society of Canada. Even though I was a young teen, I spent time reading journals and learning about light shifting etc and why the universe was scientificially viewed to be as old as it was. He also introduced me to philosophy and I read Will Durant's The Story of Philosophy and that combined with my uncles proctoring led me to learn a great deal about Aristotle, Socrates, Descarte etc.

Then at 12 I began with my family to go to an evangelical church and I began just before that to go to Christian schools. YEC was taught there as a fact and questions were discouraged. Once on a test in essay form, I gave an answer to a question about the age of the earth and I first wrote out what the school taught me and then I added to it what I knew about light shifting and the galaxies and stars moving away from a central location in a manner that made it possible to determine the speeds and times involved. The teacher called my parents in for a conference and I was not disciplined but it was clear that I crossed a line by daring to question. I wasn't told why what I said was wrong. I was simply warned not to say it and just accept what I was being taught.

Coming out of Christian secondary school I went to a Christian university where I began to study NT Biblical Literature. It was there I was introduced to the types of issues in the NT that were then easy to extend to the OT that led me to do some research that led me to the understand better the issues in the language and that led me to understand that it was not an issue of Biblical inspiration to accept the possibility of OEC but rather one of interpretation and the more I looked into it, the more I became convinced that it wasn't a matter of starting with science and then making scripture confirm. It was a matter that OEC was simply better in exegeting the texts. The fact that natural science lent itself better to an OEC understanding was certainly a factor, but it was corallary, not primary.

Common sense.

I was raised YEC, then got into creation apologetics--Hugh Ross and this site--which naturally led me to OEC. Unfortunately, I'm not much of a pragmatist by nature, so it wasn't very long before I began questioning OEC's basic tenants from a Scriptural basis. I just decided that, biblically, I don't think the doctrines line up. Contra OEC, I think the Bible teaches that the first animals were vegetarians, that there was no death before the Fall, that the future state will be a restoration of the Edenic state, that man was created very early, rather than very late, into the creation process, etc.

So, for me, it was strictly an exegetical issue. I think the Bible teaches a set of views that would be classified as YEC today, and that the theological tenants of OEC (death before the fall, carnivorous animals before sin, the late creation of man, etc.) don't line up with the text. Beyond that, I never really found the science all that compelling, especially as it relates to the attempted harmonization of Gen. 1-2 with the currently accepted scheme. I don't think the philosophy underpinning secular science is correct, so I question its findings. So I suppose I ended up more or less where I started.

Jac, Have you read "A Matter of Days" by Hugh Ross? That book explains all of the problems you stated with oec, and how they line up biblically. If you have read it, I'd like to know your opinions about what Ross has to say about death before Adam's sin, all animals being vegetarian, the future restoration of Paradise. Ross makes a great point about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and how that pertains to the "new creation" which will be perfect. As opposed to the original creation which God said was "very Good". I'm interested to hear a yec opinions on that. Thanks

DannyM wrote:Common sense.

Danny, have you always had common sense, or did you once believe in evolution, or yec? I'm looking for the story behind why you believe in oec.

I have, Rick. And The Genesis Question, and Creator and the Cosmos, and pretty much everything on both Reasons.org and our homesite. I used most of his arguments for years. I just don't think he's right exegetically. There is a difference in saying how something can be interpreted and saying how something should be interpreted. It's called warrant vs. possibility. I can posit, for instance, that aliens stole Jesus' body and then impersonated Him to explain the resurrection. It's logically possible. The question is, why should I prefer that particular explanation? What warrant does it have?

When I examined the warrant behind Ross' exegesis, I found it lacking in each case. It's nothing against him. People have different views on how Scripture ought to be interpreted. I wish I was convinced by his exegesis. I was for a time. Now, I just don't think the arguments are strong enough to warrant persuasion.

Jac, seeing how you believe in yec, what books would you recommend for their exegesis. I'm interested in reading a book from the yec side that actually makes sense to me. Thanks

Rick,

I'm sorry to disappoint, but I can't think of any worth recommending. I think most YECs have done a terrible job defending their position. The closet recommendation I can think of would be Did God Create in Six Days? edited by Joseph Pipa. It's a collection of papers that discuss the issues from various perspectives. Some of the exegesis in favor of the traditional interpretation is pretty good.

In large part, I came to my conclusions based on personal study and reading OEC material. I'm far more read in that camp than in my own. It was sort of issue-by-issue for me. At the core is the "death before the Fall" issue. I have always felt uneasy about the OEC view on that, even in my OEC days. So again, sorry I can't point you to more resources. It was mostly just me, my Greek New Testament, and my Hebrew Old Testament.

Jac, I'm interested in why you see animal death before Adam's sin to be such a problem bibically. Man is the only creature that needs redemption from sin. Even if I assume a 24 hour consecutive day model, do you really think no animals died even accidentally before Adam's sin? I guess even if I were to believe in a 24 hour day model, I still would believe animal death was possible before Adam's sin. Remember, Adam wasn't the first creature to sin against God. So having Adam responsible for all death, distorts the biblical history of sin, doesn't it. I look forward to your response.

RickD wrote:

DannyM wrote:Common sense.

Danny, have you always had common sense, or did you once believe in evolution, or yec? I'm looking for the story behind why you believe in oec.

Not always no. Perhaps still not But I think any common sense reading of the bible and specifically Genesis requires a non-literal approach. Having said that, I see Jac is YEC, and Jac is one of the most reasonable and skilled debaters I have ever come across. This leads me to think that there must be *something* that he has seen that is in fact reasonable for him to hold a YE worldview. I have seen some good arguments from YEC, but OEC has, for me, countered and triumphed over YEC every time. But, as I say, Jac being YEC does lead me to act cautiously until I can pin down what, if anything, I may have missed.

RickD wrote:Jac, I'm interested in why you see animal death before Adam's sin to be such a problem bibically. Man is the only creature that needs redemption from sin. Even if I assume a 24 hour consecutive day model, do you really think no animals died even accidentally before Adam's sin? I guess even if I were to believe in a 24 hour day model, I still would believe animal death was possible before Adam's sin. Remember, Adam wasn't the first creature to sin against God. So having Adam responsible for all death, distorts the biblical history of sin, doesn't it. I look forward to your response.

Rick - here are links to two old discussions I was engaged in before, when I was still heavily leaning toward OEC but in my questioning mode. While I would rephrase many of the arguments in these threads, the central thoughts are still, in many ways, the same:

Carnivorous Animals Before the Fall
A Response to the "No Death Before the Fall" Article

My discussion with dayage begins on the fourth page in the first link.

The short answer is that I don't believe there was animal death before the Fall. Far from "distort[ing] the biblical history of sin," I think the Bible precisely teaches that Adam's death brought sin to the whole world. My problem with the OEC arguments have far less to do with the translation of yom than the theological issue of death and sin. If we could posit an OEC model that doesn't include death before the Fall, I would be very open to the idea. I'm sure you can see, though, that the presence of death before the Fall and OEC go hand in hand. That was always the problem I had with OEC that I wasn't able to resolve, and ultimately, it is the issue that forced me to acknowledge that I could no longer advocate the position.

I hope the links help. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.

edit2: Rick, here is a direct link to a third discussion. This one is linked in the carnivorous animals thread, but I wanted to provide it explicitly here, as it goes to the heart of the hermeneutical problem I have with the OEC model's interpretation of Gen. 1:29-30.

Hermeneutics

edit:

Danny wrote:Not always no. Perhaps still not But I think any common sense reading of the bible and specifically Genesis requires a non-literal approach. Having said that, I see Jac is YEC, and Jac is one of the most reasonable and skilled debaters I have ever come across. This leads me to think that there must be *something* that he has seen that is in fact reasonable for him to hold a YE worldview. I have seen some good arguments from YEC, but OEC has, for me, countered and triumphed over YEC every time. But, as I say, Jac being YEC does lead me to act cautiously until I can pin down what, if anything, I may have missed.

It's not something I flaunt, Dan. I respect the fact that this is an OEC board. There isn't too much to gain by having the argument, given that there is much more interesting things, I think, worth discussing. Besides that, my "conversion," though long coming, is only recent. It was more a matter of admitting to myself what I already knew to be the case.

Perhaps someday I'll put together a formal defense of the position, being that most of the defenses I have seen are reactionary to say the least. Arguments from science are fine; discussions on hermeneutics and claiming the mantle of "literalism" have certainly been hashed out before. But, to me, it turns out to be a theological issue. I am forced to conclude based on a broad reading of Scripture that the Bible teaches a set of doctrines that are contrary to the OEC model. Now, I am more than willing to reexamine those doctrines, as I am any doctrine I hold, but when confronted with two interpretations, the issue to me, as I alluded to before, is warrant. Why should I hold to a particular position? To date, I've not been given a good reason. While I find OEC interpretations valid in terms of possibility, I also find them forced.

I suppose what I am trying to say is, far from arguing that YEC is based on the more "literal" reading, I would argue that YEC is based on the more "natural" reading--even in Hebrew--both exegetically and theologically. That provides my warrant. If I am going to be asked to accept a less natural reading--which is certainly possible!--I need, as an exegete, solid warrant. I simply don't see enough.

Jac,

I respect *your* repsect for this board being OEC but, as you know, there are no restrictions here on your putting forward the YEC case. However, you seem untroubled by any need to do so, and I for one respect this totally; after all, salvation is not at stake here.

Perhaps the only difference between you and I is that you are unconvinced by the OEC viewpoint and I *am* convinced by OEC; if this is the case then we are both happy and content in our positions. However, if there were something key, something very fundamental, which you had detected that I (and others) had not then I, as an honest being open to interpretation, would like to hear it. Otherwise, we are to rest easy in our respective positions and rejoice in our knowledge of Christ our saviour.

God bless

Jac3510 wrote:Perhaps someday I'll put together a formal defense of the position, being that most of the defenses I have seen are reactionary to say the least. Arguments from science are fine; discussions on hermeneutics and claiming the mantle of "literalism" have certainly been hashed out before. But, to me, it turns out to be a theological issue. I am forced to conclude based on a broad reading of Scripture that the Bible teaches a set of doctrines that are contrary to the OEC model. Now, I am more than willing to reexamine those doctrines, as I am any doctrine I hold, but when confronted with two interpretations, the issue to me, as I alluded to before, is warrant. Why should I hold to a particular position? To date, I've not been given a good reason. While I find OEC interpretations valid in terms of possibility, I also find them forced.

I suppose what I am trying to say is, far from arguing that YEC is based on the more "literal" reading, I would argue that YEC is based on the more "natural" reading--even in Hebrew--both exegetically and theologically. That provides my warrant. If I am going to be asked to accept a less natural reading--which is certainly possible!--I need, as an exegete, solid warrant. I simply don't see enough.

Yeah. I'm not YEC simply because of the data about the age of the earth and universe, yet I don't hold with some OEC arguments or defenses, including those things that go against a broad reading of scripture. So I hold no view that places me in a "camp." I'm interested in reading of Schroeder's thesis more, as August has brought up.

Danny wrote:Jac,

I respect *your* repsect for this board being OEC but, as you know, there are no restrictions here on your putting forward the YEC case. However, you seem untroubled by any need to do so, and I for one respect this totally; after all, salvation is not at stake here.

Perhaps the only difference between you and I is that you are unconvinced by the OEC viewpoint and I *am* convinced by OEC; if this is the case then we are both happy and content in our positions. However, if there were something key, something very fundamental, which you had detected that I (and others) had not then I, as an honest being open to interpretation, would like to hear it. Otherwise, we are to rest easy in our respective positions and rejoice in our knowledge of Christ our saviour.

God bless

Dan,

You're right that I don't feel the need to press a YEC case--here or anywhere. I don't even engage in creation apologetics (I stick the the moral argument and Jesus' resurrection, and that seems to suffice in real evangelism). As you say, it's not an issue that relates to salvation, and there are far more interesting things worth discussing here, I think. As far as the issue itself goes, obviously, I'm not convinced by the OEC arguments, but I won't say it isn't a valid interpretation. I respect it as a possibility. My problem with it is that I think Genesis 1:29-30 positively teaches that all animals were herbivores before the Fall. I think that Romans 5:12 teaches there was no death of any kind before the Fall. I question the warrant for translating yom as "age," but that's lesser issue.

I've read Rich's article on Gen. 1:29-30 and Rom 5:12, and I have methodological problems with his exegesis (which I discussed in the linked hermeneutics thread). I wish I did think he was right. It would certainly make it easier to be an apologist in this day and age. But I have to be honest with myself and with the text. Genesis 1:29-30 and Romans 5:12 teach that there was no death before the Fall. That's what the Bible says. That, unfortunately, makes OEC untenable for me, because I then have absolutely no basis on which to understand the yomim in Genesis 1 as ages.

I also don't think that we can base our view of Gen. 1-2 on Ps. 104, which is a major proof text of OEC.

I am, though, in the process of doing a statistical and syntactical analysis of the word yom. I may try to have the results published, but either way, I will let you all examine my results when finished. It is a final project I'm doing for my Hebrew courses.

edit:

cslewislover wrote:Yeah. I'm not YEC simply because of the data about the age of the earth and universe, yet I don't hold with some OEC arguments or defenses, including those things that go against a broad reading of scripture. So I hold no view that places me in a "camp." I'm interested in reading of Schroeder's thesis more, as August has brought up.

May I ask for an example of an argument or defense you don't hold to?