Some thoughts on Old vs. Young Earth Creationism

The following is a contribution I recently made to an internal debate among Christian apologists regarding the proper interpretation of the creation narratives of Genesis and the age of the earth/universe:

I'll just add this one (rather lengthy) comment to this conversation and then happily retire from the discussion. Now, I've studied Greek and Hebrew enough to know that there is a lot I don't know. But I've talked to, and read some of the works of, highly regarded evangelical Hebrew scholars and have found that there is quite possibly much more that went into the writing of the creation narratives than a casual reading might indicate.

First, I don't know that a straight forward "literal" 24 hrs is not anachronistic. Much like reports of Jesus' sayings in the New Testament are not likely word for word. (Such was not the author's intent and would have been quite foreign to the first century gospel writer’s cognitive processes and intentions). There are numerous scholars that agree that the Genesis account of creation was originally written for polemical purposes against other ANE creation myths. Perhaps there is something of exegetical significance in this, perhaps not.

I think that "literal" 24 hrs is a gross over-simplification of the issue given what we know about time and relativity (i.e. reference frames, etc). See Gerald Schroeder's book Genesis and the Big Bang (although I would not rely on the Jewish mystics and numerous other aspects of his hermeneutics). It should be noted that serious defenders of Christian orthodoxy have approached the creation texts allegorically. Some even thought that six days would actually be an insult to a perfect being that could do all creating in an instant.

Bruce Waltke is about as conservative as they come and one of the leading OT scholars alive today. In his celebrated An Old Testament Theology he explains that liberal theologians stand above the Bible holding up higher criticism and their "assured results." Neo-orthodox theologians stand before the Bible such that through preaching the words of the Bible become the word of God (a canon within a canon which places authority with the audience). Traditionalists place confessions/traditions alongside the Bible which often end up nullifying the biblical witness. Fundamentalists stand on the Bible. I will now quote Waltke at length:

"By 'fundamentalist' I mean here those who presume the Bible does not stray from their standards of accuracy, especially in matters of science and historiography. They presume their interpretive horizon represents truth and that the biblical writers, though writing in an ancient environment, will not stray from the "accuracy" of their modern horizon. But the ancient standards do not necessarily conform to modern standards. The only legitimate human standard by which the Bible can be measured is the logic of noncontradiction. Paradox may be incomprehensible, but contradiction is 'non-sense.' What I have in mind here is that the fundamentalists do not "stand under" the Bible long enough to "understand" it. Sometimes they, though well intentioned, advertise 'the Bible as it is for men as they are,' but they neglect the prior question of whether 'men as they are are fit for the Bible as it is." (Waltke, 77).

I will also note that many of the contemporary liberal New Testament radicals come from brittle fundamentalist backgrounds. "Show me one error in the Bible and I throw out the whole thing." Craig Evans suggested that that was what happended in the case of Bart Ehrman. (Note: Ehrman clarified his move to agnosticism was based on his inability to reconcile the concept of God with the existence of evil. Prior to that, he stated at the 2007 Greer-Heard debate with Daniel Wallace, he knew of textual variants, and had shifted to a more mainline, non-evangelical Christianity).

Waltke continues:

"Many Christians subconsciously maintain a naivete that in fact is a studied neglect toward the Bible. They resist learning about critical issues, such as the existence of differing Hebrew texts and versions of the biblical text, the need for textual critics to choose among the variant forms, the uncertainty of the meaning of some Hebrew words in the Old Testament, and so on. These types of questions make us uncomfortable because answering them requires that we place ourselves above the text. It forces us to play the role of the critic, making judgments about the history, social situations, and literary forms. This role is spiritually and psychologically difficult for the pious, but in the exegetical process, these and other types of judgments have to be made. To back away from these questions in the name of piety is to flee the responsibility God has given us. On the other hand, some sophomoric students, having cast off the original naiveté, retain a suspicious stance toward the Bible. This is a spiritually impoverishing position because being above the text means that we cease to hear the text speaking directly to us. Consequently, we are cut off from the life-giving power of the word of God.

The correct balance is to first cast off our original naiveté, prayerfully tackle difficult exegetical questions, and then reassume a stance in subjection to the text--what Paul Ricouer calls a 'second naivete,' a childlike acceptance in faith of the text's message. In practice this means that having done our critical work on the text, we insist on submitting ourselves to it, accepting its truth and its authority in our lives. This is a difficult balance to achieve, but God's grace through the Holy Spirit will generate this stance in those who pray for it." (Waltke, 82-83, italics mine).

The sense I get from some of [our exchanges] is that perhaps we have presumed to stand on the Bible before we have properly stood under it. This is a huge hermeneutical question we are dealing with here.

My point in all of this is that I am getting a sense [from some contributors] that the hermeneutical questions regarding Genesis have been thoroughly settled. I have studied this issue enough to suspect that they have not been. I am trying to "stand under" the Bible in order to understand it well enough to stand on my convictions regarding the proper hermeneutic once I've done due diligence. But this is a time consuming task. Those who claim to have listened to a few sermons from high profile evangelical leaders and have the answers simply have not done the work. Let us be workmen who rightly divide the word. I trust that is what we are all attempting to do. Let us do so with charity and intellectual humility.

I’ll now close with Waltke’s own position, which I endorse:

“I label my own position as ‘evangelical’ for lack of a better term. I accept the inerrancy of Scripture as to its Source and its infallibility as to its authority. My spiritual conviction is intellectually defensible. The finite mind is incapable of coming to infinite truth and moreover is depraved. To live wisely I need the inspired revelation of the divine reality by which I can judge the wisdom or the folly, the right or the wrong, of my thoughts and actions. But I dare not presume to understand how or what this revelation means before coming to it on its own terms. I must allow the Bible to dictate how it seeks to reveal God’s truth. I study how it writes history; I examine and learn to recognize the different forms of literature: poetry, narrative, prophecy, and so on. I consider the Bible utterly trustworthy, and I commit my life to it, but I do not presume to know beforehand the exact nature of its parts. With this posture, I continue to learn and allow myself to be taught and corrected by the Bible.” (Waltke, 77)

I do lean toward an old earth/universe position because I do think that there is sufficient hermeneutical room to allow for it and it accords well with what are generally taken to be highly verified scientific theories which are products (fallible though they are) of general revelation and rationality as an important aspect of the imago dei that remains, I am persuaded, even in the unregenerate. I don’t know what to think about evolution other than to say that the origin of life certainly did not occur by chance, neither do irreducibly complex molecular machines just magically assemble themselves all at once. Gradual transition, as necessitated by Darwin’s theory, as I understand it, has been falsified by the fossil record. But what about any kind of death or pain before original sin? I’m not sure what to say. But there are some natural law theodicies that may shed some light on the issue of pain and suffering as necessary for a rationally intelligible and morally significant world (c.f. Bruce Reichenbach’s “Natural Evils and Natural Law: A Theodicy for Natural Evils”, 1976). Would Adam have felt pain if he’d stubbed his toe against a stone prior to original sin? I tend to think that he would have, and that it would have been a good thing. There was death in the plant kingdom prior to original sin inasmuch as Adam and Eve ate the fruits of the garden. These are some issues that float around in my head and I have so much other reading to do that I’ve not had time to sort it all out. But the one thing I will say is that the issue of young vs. old creationism is not as simple as some...would seem to suggest, and I concur...that if this is going to degenerate into name calling or outright demagoguery, then we should move on to another subject that is more edifying for the saints, and will enable us to be obedient regarding Paul’s injunction to redeem the time for the days are evil.


Fides Quaerens Intellectum