A quote regarding the dangers of YEC'ism

[Vance]

Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel to the lost and in defending God's truth we ourselves will seem to be false. It is time for Christian people to recognize that the defense of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology creationism is simply not truthful. It is simply not in accord with the facts that God has given. Creationism must be abandoned by Christians before harm is done. The persistent attempt of the creationist movement to get their points of view established in educational institutions can only bring harm to the Christian cause. Can we seriously expect non-Christian educational leaders to develop a respect for Christianity if we insist on teaching the brand of science that creationism brings with it? Will not the forcing of modern creationism on the public simply lend credence to the idea already entertained by so many intellectual leaders that Christianity, at least in its modern form, is sheer anti-intellectual obscurantism? I fear that it will. ~Davis Young, Christianity and the Age of the Earth, 1982

I think that "Creationism", as he uses the term, means Young Earth Creationism or Creation Science, not the belief that God created the universe.

 

[jon1101]

Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel to the lost and in defending God's truth we ourselves will seem to be false. It is time for Christian people to recognize that the defense of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology creationism is simply not truthful. It is simply not in accord with the facts that God has given. Creationism must be abandoned by Christians before harm is done. The persistent attempt of the creationist movement to get their points of view established in educational institutions can only bring harm to the Christian cause. Can we seriously expect non-Christian educational leaders to develop a respect for Christianity if we insist on teaching the brand of science that creationism brings with it? Will not the forcing of modern creationism on the public simply lend credence to the idea already entertained by so many intellectual leaders that Christianity, at least in its modern form, is sheer anti-intellectual obscurantism? I fear that it will. ~Davis Young, Christianity and the Age of the Earth, 1982

I think that "Creationism", as he uses the term, means Young Earth Creationism or Creation Science, not the belief that God created the universe.

I agree wholeheartedly, with the quote and your analysis.

-jon

 

[lucaspa]

I think that "Creationism", as he uses the term, means Young Earth Creationism or Creation Science, not the belief that God created the universe.

Since Davis Young is an evangelical Christian writing in the year Creation Science was trying to get into public schools, this is an accurate analysis. He is just as scathing of YEC and Flood Geology in his more recent book The Biblical Flood: A Case History of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence.

"The church serves no good end by clinging to failed interpretations of the Bible and refusing to explore new directions. Christian scholars have an obligation to lead the way toward a renewed reverence for God's truth wherever it can be found. Conservative scholars must develop a more aggressive attitude toward creation and encourage the church's youth to enter not only the pastorate, mission work, and theology but also such fields as the natural sciences, archeology, an-thropology, and the social sciences. If anything, Christians should be preeminently motivated to investigate the intricacies of God's created order; confident that a better grasp of both God's Word and God's works will be forthcoming." Davis A. Young, The Biblical Flood, A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence, pp 304-312.

For his stand, the YECers put him (and Howard Van Till) on trial for heresy.

It's interesting that no YECers have commented so far.

 

[Vance]

Bump

 

[mo.]

It is time for Christian people to recognize that the defense of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology creationism is simply not truthful. It is simply not in accord with the facts that God has given. Creationism must be abandoned by Christians before harm is done.

I think it is very wrong to presume that believing in Creationism is wrong. There are many wrongs with the belief in the evolution system and yet it is accepted over the Word of God. Should we abandon the belief in the resurrection and the virgin birth simply because it is not scientific?

 

[Vance]

Mo, we have covered this so many times, it is becoming a bit frustrating. There is nothing in the least inconsistent about a belief in evolution and a belief in the virgin birth or the resurrection. Those Christians who believe in evolution know full well that God can do any miracle that He likes. He set up the natural laws the world follows, and He can override them at any given time. So, He can do the miracles of the virgin birth and the resurrection, no problem at all. This does not conflict with science in the least, by the way. Science is just the study of how things happen according to the natural laws God created. It has nothing to do with the times that God may override those laws.

So, yes, God could have created the universe in six 24 hour days. He could have creaeted it in six milliseconds! But there is massive evidence that He did not. Unlike the virgin birth and the resurrection, for which there is NO evidence that this did not happen. In fact, there is evidence that it did, found in the Gospels. So, no problem there at all.

And, since there is so much evidence that God did not create the universe 6,000 years ago, over a six day period, AND the fact that there is no conflict with Scripture if He created it over billions of years, why NOT accept the evidence?

But, the bottom line is that the danger is associating the YEC belief with the validity of Scripture or even the truth of the Christian Message itself! This only leads to lost souls. Better to say that this is a matter that Bible-believing Christians differ over and that some believe there is no conflict at all with evolution and an old earth and Christian belief.

 

[Vance]

I would like to add that one of the reasons why I feel strongly about this is that I have seen people lose their faith because they had been indoctrinated with the YEC concept that Scripture and and old earth were incompatible. They were raised with the notion that the only way to read Genesis one was as six 24 hour days and a 6,000 year old earth. When they got old enough to look into the matter themselves, and came to realize that the earth was dramatically older than that, they simply could not shake their indoctrination that the Bible must, therefore, be incorrect. Souls lost to the Kingdom.

Also, in my own witnessing of the true message of God's redemptive gift of Jesus His son, I can't tell you how many times the conversation goes something like this:

non-Christian: why should I believe that Jesus died for my sins?

me: because it says so in the Bible, the Word of God.

non-Christian: ah, but the Bible also says that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and that a flood covered the whole earth, and I know those things aren't true, so why should I believe any of it?

This has happened to me at least a dozen times. While some of them I have been able to show that only the YEC's believe in the young earth and global flood, and the rest of us Christians do not, and get them to see that they CAN believe in the Bible, others just turned away.

Whether you believe in YEC'ism or not, why even place this stumbling block up for non-Christians or our youth? Since it is not a salvation issue, why NOT make sure that everyone knows that there are different opinions among Christians on this point, and avoid teaching YEC'ism as dogmatic absolutism?

As Buck correctly said, dogma is horrifically dangerous when it is wrong. Why take the chance when it is not important in the overall scheme of Christian belief?

 

[lucaspa]

I think that "Creationism", as he uses the term, means Young Earth Creationism or Creation Science, not the belief that God created the universe.

Yes. Young was writing before ID came on the scene and where the only form of modern creationism was YEC.

And yes, Young believes that God created the universe. He's a TE.

 

[lucaspa]

Should we abandon the belief in the resurrection and the virgin birth simply because it is not scientific?

Neither of those is "not scientific". You have simply listened to atheists tell you that they are not scientific. Why do you believe them?

There is nothing in science to contradict either the resurrection or virgin birth. Atheists depend on a misunderstanding of science to say this.

There is data that shows that creationism is false.

 

[Godzman]

Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel to the lost and in defending God's truth we ourselves will seem to be false. It is time for Christian people to recognize that the defense of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology creationism is simply not truthful. It is simply not in accord with the facts that God has given. Creationism must be abandoned by Christians before harm is done. The persistent attempt of the creationist movement to get their points of view established in educational institutions can only bring harm to the Christian cause. Can we seriously expect non-Christian educational leaders to develop a respect for Christianity if we insist on teaching the brand of science that creationism brings with it? Will not the forcing of modern creationism on the public simply lend credence to the idea already entertained by so many intellectual leaders that Christianity, at least in its modern form, is sheer anti-intellectual obscurantism? I fear that it will. ~Davis Young, Christianity and the Age of the Earth, 1982

I think that "Creationism", as he uses the term, means Young Earth Creationism or Creation Science, not the belief that God created the universe.

God created the earth as in Genesis, yet our time may not be accurate. I am an OEC, devout in the sense that Genesis is literal, our interperation has been wrong in the past but it is still literal

 

[lucaspa]

God created the earth as in Genesis, yet our time may not be accurate. I am an OEC, devout in the sense that Genesis is literal, our interperation has been wrong in the past but it is still literal

Godzman, you can never reconcile the order of creation in a literal reading with the order of appearance of entities in the physical universe.

Instead, say that the theological messages of Genesis are accurate, but that any "science" in Genesis 1-8 is not.

BTW, in talking about "God created the earth as in Genesis", which part of Genesis? Since Genesis 1 contradicts Genesis 2-3 and both are contradicted by Genesis 5. Which of those ways in Genesis did God use?

 

[Godzman]

Godzman, you can never reconcile the order of creation in a literal reading with the order of appearance of entities in the physical universe.

Instead, say that the theological messages of Genesis are accurate, but that any "science" in Genesis 1-8 is not.

BTW, in talking about "God created the earth as in Genesis", which part of Genesis? Since Genesis 1 contradicts Genesis 2-3 and both are contradicted by Genesis 5. Which of those ways in Genesis did God use?

I already told my position on that

 

[Vance]

Godzman, the OEC Progressive Creationism is a very interesting approach, if that is what you believe. While there are "issues" with it, as with all theories, it at least accepts the age of the earth and it is my belief that the "young earth" part of Young Earth Creationism is the most damaging since it is the most obviously incorrect.

I have heard that Dr. Hugh Ross has gone through and done an analysis of how the "days" of the creation actually do fit the evidence we have for when things first appeared on the Earth, but I can not find this spelled out on his website. It only refers to one of his books. It seems, though, that he holds that the "days" are not mutually exclusive. They can overlap and some extend on througout the creation process (in that the "day" was when those things were first introduced, but then it continued on).

While I think he is wrong to dismiss evolution as a possibility, I think he is miles ahead of the YEC belief.