In the last few months of lurking on this forum I noticed a particular theme that seems to be central to the whole issue of origins. It seems it's really all about how we interpret the creation account, and what a "true" Christian is to believe about our origins.
I'm wondering if the YECs can explain how the TEs understand the creation account? Do you think they've brushed it off? Do you think there is a meaning that they see in it? If so what is that meaning? What is necessary that they are missing and how have they dealt with it?
I ask because of comments from YECs where they post scripture for creation, a TE responds by saying they don't see it that way, and the YEC comes back and instead of asking how the TE sees it, they accuse them of not trusting the bible.
I'm of the variety that if someone says they see it differently I want to hear what it is and gain an understading of their position, even if that means I won't agree with them at the end. At least I will know where their heart is at and if they are truly after learning about God's word and living the Christian life.
So please, to both sides, post the understanding you have of the other sides theological views. This question really does go out to TEs and YECs, but I'm most interested in the YEC answer to this.
First, Philis, thank you for asking a really, really interesting question. I hope more YECs will answer, and will answer your actual question.
Miami Ted made a good presentation of what most YECs think about WHY TEs believe as they do, but he didn't describe what he thinks we actually believe.
I want to use two of his thoughts as a jumping off place for my own.
Miami Ted said:
My thoughts are that those who identify themselves as believers in the Lord Jesus, who don't understand the creation account are apprehensive about looking 'ignorant' in the eyes of the world. As a matter of fact, there's even one poster on these threads that when they get into a discussion on this issue constantly and regularly refer to those who hold to the young earth model as 'ignorant'. So, that poster is a prime example of why some would not want to hold to the young earth model.
No one likes to be called 'stupid' or 'ignorant', and for many it's more than they can handle. For me, I don't care what a man labels me or the names he may call me. My goal here on this earth is not to agree with any man, but God.
I think this is the most common belief YECs hold about TEs, the only reason they can think of that any Christian would doubt their version of how the creation accounts should be interpreted. We fear being cut off from the mainstream academic community, of being seen as foolish, backward, ignorant people trapped in an outmoded superstition.
Actually one early Christian theologian, St. Augustine, answered that very well.
Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,
and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.
St. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)
In short, there is an evangelistic reason not to be seen as ignorant.
If unbelievers have legitimate reasons to scorn the foolish ignorance of a Christian about the creation, why would they be open to what a Christian has to say about the Creator?
Of course, this only applies when one has evidence that the knowledge of the world gained through study of nature is valid knowledge.--when holding to a certain type of "literal" interpretation does lead one into talking nonsense about knowledge people "hold with certainty" for valid scientific reasons.
And that leads to the other common thread in YEC thinking, as I understand it.
Miami Ted said:
As I read the Scriptures God numbered each day, which most Jewish scholars agree is an indication that they were literal days. That rule holds true throughout the Scriptures. Never once broken.
"Literal" originally applied to the meaning of words no matter what the context of the words. I believe that Miami Ted and other YECs are quite right in saying the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis 1 is literal. It doesn't mean anything other than an ordinary day with an evening and a morning. It is not a symbol for a long age.
But in the mind of YECS the meaning of "literal" is not limited to what the word means. They have extended that to what the word references. "Literal" suggests to them reality, actuality, empirical experience.
So, for a YEC, the idea that the literal days of Genesis are also fictional days in a work of literature makes no sense at all. From a YEC viewpoint, it is not enough that the word "day" mean "day" without symbolism (which I agree it does) but that it also be a real, actual day in the actual history of the earth, such that had a person been there to see, they would have empirically experienced what is described as happening.
The mental link between this view of "literalism" and the truth of scripture is so strong that they feel they cannot abandon this view of "literalism" without rejecting the inspired truth of scripture. And, logically, they see those of us who have rejected this view of literalism as committing that rejection.
My belief is that this view of literalism is false and harmful, because it is so at odds with actual empirical observations of the created world. I hold with TE precisely because I believe God created the world we actually experience and so we must honour the testimony the created world gives of itself.
If that means (as it did in the case of the structure of the solar system) that we must interpret scripture differently than our ancestors did, so be it. Better to preserve the theology of scripture than a false view of literalism and a false view of the actual history of the earth.
Especially when that false view of the history of the earth becomes an obstacle and stumbling block to evangelizing those who are aware of the evidence for deep time.
Let me expand a bit on this.
In Romans, Paul says that unbelievers have no excuse for rejecting God because his power and glory are seen in the creation itself, so creation itself testifies of God.
Both TEs and YECs agree with that theology. The created world is a wonderful and amazing testimony to the power, wisdom and glory of God.
But what world is that?
It seems to me that YEC is caught in a dilemma. Their view of the "literal truth" of a text means they reject the actual empirical testimony of the created world we all experience. They see the glory of God in things for which there is not an iota of evidence (and there have been a whole slew of suggestions, none of which is accepted by all YECs: hydroplates, water canopies, accelerated plate tectonic movement, changes in the physical constants of the universe to speed up time and radioactive decay, recent ice age, recent division of the continents, hyper-fast evolution, and so on)
But if creation itself is to be a testimony of God to unbelievers, it must be the creation actually experienced by unbelievers. And what geologists, astronomers, geneticist, etc. actually experience in the creation is a universe that unfolds through deep time to the present.
If we Christians cannot find the glory of God in THAT world, we have no testimony to unbelievers.
It is my experience, and of many other Christians, that in fact, the creation as it is actually experienced through scientific exploration DOES glorify God and that the more we learn of it through science the more amazement and the more wonder it presents to us. Many scientists, of course, are Christians and some of them post here.
