The Three Biggest Reasons I’m a Biblical Creationist…

Completely Different

Breaking from my Charismatic and Christmas writing, but keeping along with the alliteration, let’s talk a little about Creationism!  Not just general Creationism (which could be theistic, deistic, old earth, young earth, day-age, metaphorical, etc.), but what I’ve heard called Biblical Creationism.  For the sake of clarity, Biblical Creationism is a little different than Young Earth Creationism (YEC) because, at least from my understanding, it doesn’t really make an evidentialist fight over the age of the earth but rather is more concerned with the biblical text itself and talks far less about the age of the earth than YEC.  Seeing that the Bible doesn’t directly address the age of the earth, as a Biblical Creationist I simply leave it as a logical necessity demanded by the text of scripture, regardless of the state of contemporary empirical research, but I’m not really interested in debating things like geomorphology or carbon dating (simply because I recognize that I lack sufficient understanding of those things to discuss them accurately).

Now, a while ago, I wrote a comment that turned into a whole blog post while I was interacting with someone.  I’ve edited it a bit, and here are my three biggest reasons why I’m a Biblical Creationist:

1.  Creation was a supernatural event.


It’s so funny how so many people who are theistic evolutionists, or any other form of *somewhat* creationists, assume a supernatural explanation for the ultimate origin of all biological life the universe and then argue for a natural explanation regarding how all biological life came to be in its current form, especially when the Bible makes it so utterly clear that the origin and form of biological life came about as the result of a supernatural event.

By their very nature, supernatural events are events that, in terms of any combination of natural processes, are utterly impossible.  The very nature of supernatural events rules out natural processes right from the start.

I mean, let’s be serious with one example: the feeding of the 5,000. If we’re talking about ANY sort of underlying “how” that involves ANY sort of physical process whatsoever, what sort of physical process spontaneously either creates matter or re-organizes it from one complex structure (i.e. air) into another (i.e. bread)? What combination of natural processes regularly makes bread appear nicely in baskets?

Get serious.

There is no physical process that explains it, and everyone knows it (remember this when we get to point #3). If anyone suggests that there might be a physical process to explain it that hasn’t yet been discovered, then they’re clearly exhibiting blind faith in the omnipotence of unregenerate men and their reason rather than informed faith in the omnipotent God of the Bible and his revelation.

I’d submit that as a good practical definition of “insanity”.

Now there was an underlying mechanism to creation, but it wasn’t a physical one; the mechanism was divine speech.


The Bible tells us jolly well what the “mechanism” of creation was; divine speech. Genesis 1 is filled with the phrase “and God said” followed by matter obeying the divine sovereign of the universe and marching according to his directions. The mechanism of creation was that Jesus Christ spoke.  That’s all. That’s maybe not the answer many are wanting, but that’s the answer that scripture gives us.

2.  The scripture reveals the supernatural event of Creation occurred in six solar days.


Now, if you’re a Christian there should be a basic understanding that the Bible is divine revelation; the Bible is actually God revealing himself to humanity in propositional language (if you don’t believe in the inspiration of scripture, meaning that the scriptures [in their original autographs] are the very words of God, then you have some problems with basic Christian doctrine…).  The big fight comes with the interpretation of the Bible, and with Genesis the big fight usually boils down to the interpretation of the word “day”.

As far as the meaning of the word “day” in Genesis 1 goes, did you ever notice that there’s debate on the meaning of “day” in Genesis 1 and basically nowhere else?  Why is that?  Why is Genesis apparently so confusing?  Genesis 1 spells it out in plain language with both ordinal numbers (first, second, third, etc.) and the phrase “evening and morning”, kinda like God saw this strange debate coming, and yet hordes of people claim that the word “day” could meaning any number of things.  Do they make that same “it’s possible, therefore it’s probable” argument anywhere else?

– In Exodus 18:13-14, we have a day with the phrase “evening and morning”. As far as I’m aware, there is absolutely no debate about the length of the “day” in Exodus 18:13-14. The same goes for Exodus 27:21, Leviticus 6:20, Numbers 9:21, Judges 19:9, and everywhere else in the OT where there’s a day with “evening and morning”.  I don’t know of one example outside of Genesis where there’s serious debate.

– In Exodus 12:15-18, we have the a day with an ordinal number. As far as I’m aware, there is absolutely no debate about the length of the “day” in Exodus 12:15-18. The same goes for Exodus 40:2, 40:17, Leviticus 23:5, 23:24, 23:35, 23:39-40, Numbers 1:1, 1:18, 7:12, 9:5, 28:16, 28:18, 29:1, 33:3, 33:38, etc. (the examples here number in the triple digits and the pattern is uniform throughout the whole Old Testament).

– In Deuteronomy 16:4 we have a day with both an ordinal number and the phrase “evening and morning”. As far as I’m aware, there is absolutely no debate about the length of the “day” in Deuteronomy 16:4.  In 1 Samuel 17:16, we have a cardinal number (one, two three, etc.) with the phrase “evening and morning”. As far as I’m aware, there is absolutely no debate about the length of the “day” in 1 Samuel 16:14.  Whether or not there are cardinal numbers or ordinal numbers, the meaning of “day” isn’t a topic of argument outside of Genesis, with the only exceptions being a few prophetic passages.

The pattern is consistent in scripture throughout the Old and New Testaments. When the word “day” appears with the phrase “evening and morning”, it’s a regular 24-hour solar day. When the word “day” appears with either a ordinal or cardinal number, it’s a regular 24-hour solar day; the only places in the entire scripture where the meaning of “day” is debated is in a handful of prophetic passages (i.e. “the day of the Lord”).

Beyond that, the meaning of any word in scripture isn’t found by taking a list of possible meaning and selecting which ever one suits your preferences.  The meaning of any word in scripture is found by understanding it as it is used in the sentence in which it appears (in other words, the meaning of a word is found by its usage in context).

I’m wondering what within the text of scripture drives so many to say things along the lines of “Genesis itself is unclear as to the meaning of the word ‘day’ in Genesis 1” when the scripture appears to overtly rub our faces in it? Even many liberal Hebrew scholars admit that it seems like the author of Genesis was trying to portray the “days” as normal, 24 hours solar days….but many scholars simply don’t have a very high opinion of whoever wrote Genesis.


3.  Rejecting the Biblical Account of Creation inescapably necessitates rejecting the Biblical Account of Christ.

Now these days, there is a popular “Jesus only” movement where people try to focus on Christ and more or less ignore what they see as “secondary” debates.  The line goes something like “I don’t want to focus on arguing about this or that; I want to focus on Jesus!”  Many in the Young, Restless and Reformed category fall into this camp, and in some ways I agree.

***If you focus on doctrine at the expense of Christ, your doctrine is useless to both you and the world.***

Who’s going to argue against the idea that Jesus should be the most important component of Christian belief?  Not me!

But, I would come back to suggest that only in the context of the entire Old Testament, cemented in all its glorious prophetic promises and intricate historic details, does the risen Christ find any meaning whatsoever.  If Genesis 1 is a myth, so is the risen Christ…not because of some sort of “slippery slope” argument but rather because of logical & theological necessity.  Let me explain for a second:

a.  It is a logical necessity because the root reason for challenging a straightforward reading of the biblical account of creation is the utter incompatibility of the Genesis account with empirical naturalism.  Empirical (physical) naturalism is the foundation of empirical (physical) science and it’s the idea that, at least for the purposes of empirical observation and experimentation, natural processes are all that can be considered for the purpose of empirical investigation.  In simple terms, we don’t see supernatural events regularly occurring so we assume that they simply can’t occur (or else the entire scientific enterprise becomes useless because results could vary from experiment to experiment due to the random insertion of supernatural occurrences).

The problem is that the Bible is a divinely authoritative book recording a fair amount of supernatural events, and not just in Genesis; we know with certainty that specific supernatural events have occurred throughout history.  Trying to make sense of any supernatural event in history through natural explanations simply cannot work since there is no naturalistic explanation for a supernatural event, and neither can a naturalistic interpretation of the effects of a supernatural event ever arrive at a supernatural explanation of that event. A supernatural event, even if it actually occurred, simply is not on the list of options for the empirical naturalist.


The same naturalism that cannot believe the divine account of creation Genesis 1 also cannot believe the resurrection account of Matthew 28.   Even with a time machine, the empirical naturalist who personally witnessed the death and resurrection of Christ would have to abandon their empirical naturalism to ever make sense of what they personally witnessed.  Even though they would be eyewitnesses, they would have to rule out what really happened as a possible explanation in order to hold to their empirical naturalism.  That empirical naturalist would be in the same position if they witnessed the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, the transfiguration, the  giving of the Holy Spirit, his prophecies of his own death, etc.

2.  It is a theological necessity because the root reason for disbelieving a straightforward reading of the biblical account of creation is sin.  Actually, the root reason for disbelieving the scripture, in general, is sin rather than some sort of rational process of deduction.  There are plenty of scriptures dealing with this idea (i.e. Luke 16:18-31, Romans 1:18-23, 1 Corinthians 2:10-14, 2 Corinthians 3:12-15, Ephesians 4:17-19, etc.) but there’s one great one that specifically deals with origins issues:

This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.2 Peter 3:1-7

Now 2 Peter 3:1-7 is talking about the coming divine judgment, but the idea presented is that the reason people disbelieve the divine testimony about the future is the same reason that they disbelieve the divine testimony about the past.  The reason that people scoff at the notion of coming judgment is because they’re “following their own sinful desires”; unregenerate people disbelieve the testimony of scripture because they follow their desire to sin, not their reason.

In other words, sin leaves an unregenerate man unable to see reality as it truly is; reality in relation to God.

Closed Eyes

Their eyes are not closed to the facts of nature, but the cannot possibly understand those facts in relation to God.

Avoiding a 40,000 word rabbit trail regarding the noetic effects of sin (how sin affects the mind and reasoning process), the unregenerate person disbelieves the scriptures because of sin.  Not only that, but they also can only believe the scriptures due to divine regeneration of the heart.  Hebrews 11:3 clearly states “By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.”  That doesn’t mean that Christians blindly trust that God is right and ignore all the contrary data; the biblical account of creation is empirically validated by every fact of nature in existence.  Rather, saving faith (i.e. regeneration) is the means by which we come to a right perception of every fact of nature in existence and are able to believe that the universe was created by God (as well as live in the light of the moral significance of that belief).  We don’t get there by assembling a large body of facts; we get there by God granting us, by his grace, to rightly see whatever limited facts we have.

I could go on and on, but I’ve been piecemealing this post together for around 5 days now (since I only can blog after the kids go to bed at night, which means I maybe have an hour or two to write).  It’s about time I simply tossed it up in order to post something.

So, I’m going to simply break there and allow the comments to come active.  I welcome all thoughts and interactions.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “blogging ad vesperam” Unger



38 thoughts on “The Three Biggest Reasons I’m a Biblical Creationist…

  1. Amazing isn’t it, how people would rather stick their head in the sand and pretend God doesn’t exist or interact with the universe. Like children with their hands over their ears loudly saying “la, la,la,la,la!” so they cannot hear the truth. The gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing. And if Genesis is true then “The Gospel” must be dealt with. When Christ returns and we shout for joy upon His arrival, there will be millions of people , “shocked!…shocked!…that He had the audacity to actually return”. Who will then immediately start begging for mercy and making excuses for their unbelief. Thank you for a well reasoned and cogent argument. May God richly bless your efforts to bring TRUTH to the debate.

  2. Pingback: The Three Biggest Reasons I’m a Biblical Creationist – Lyndon Unger « Prisoner Of Christ

  3. “Who’s going to argue that Jesus should be the most important component of Christian belief? Not me”

    Was that supposed to say “shouldn’t”?Otherwise, great article.

    For further reading, has an excellent article on the “God of Gaps” accusation; often leveled at Christians or ID people. The conclusion is that ID deserves the accusation because they don’t identify the attributes of God, while Christians shouldn’t be guilty of it, but often are when they argue evidentialy. Just use their search bar for “God of Gaps” its one of the first articles to show up.

  4. YEC’s and OEC’s both are unhappy with me because I remain agnostic about the age of the earth.

    I simply say God created it all. I’m staunchly against evolution and theistic evolution. I’m okay with ID, YEC, and OEC. Because they’re all against evolution.

  5. I agree 100% with the article. Furthermore, just as God created Adam and Eve with the appearance of age, so He could have created the Earth with the appearance of age, even though it was only seconds old. And this statement is not falsifiable.

    • Thanks for the comments KSM. I agree that God could have created the earth with the “appearance of age”, but I kinda don’t like that language. I prefer to say that God made the world “fully functional” immediately when he created it.

      The earth was made to be functioning, but that doesn’t mean that it looks older than it is. It’s as old as God says (or insinuates) it is.

  6. This is a difficult post for me to respond to, for the very best reasons: that Lyndon is one of my very favorite people on the internet and that he is absolutely committed (as am I) to the indisputable and complete, inerrant, infallible authority of Scripture.

    Having said all that, this is an issue that I frankly cannot seem to force myself to be really interested in. I’m not a science guy, so I have no vested interest in whether YEC or ID make a more credible claim on that regard.

    However, it’s incredibly difficult for me to get worked up about the age of the earth because I just don’t see that it matters to the text of Genesis at all. It seems to me that the purposes of the Genesis narrative are as follows:

    1. To show that the created order is in fact a CREATED order–the world is not eternally preexisting manner, but was the creation of Yahweh.

    2. To oppose the creation myths of other ANE cultures. Jim Hamilton has a tremendous section on this in God’s Glory in Salvation Through Judgment (which I commend to everyone enthusiastically. seriously: one of the best books you could ever possibly read.)–suffice to say that other creation narratives of the period describe the creation in the most revoltingly explicit sexual imagery, demonstrate overt misogyny and shameless bloodlust, and not infrequently lay groundwork for idolatry in how they discuss the sun, the moon, stars, animals, etc.

    By contrast, Yahweh creates the universe by simply speaking it into existence. Further, the creation narrative is almost comically laconic in terms of how it relates the creation. It mentions neither animal, nor star, nor sun, nor moon (nor anything else that ANE cultures worshipped) by name, and indeed seems so comparatively unconcerned with such things (when compared to other similar narratives) that Yahweh himself takes no part in the naming process, but relegates that entirely to a lesser emissary (Adam).

    3. To demonstrate Yahwheh’s ownership over the created order, which he designed to be a dwelling place where he might have fellowship with the human beings he also created. For a fuller treatment of this, see either Meredith Kline’s Images of the Spirit or G. K. Beale’s The Temple and the Church’s Mission. The earth isn’t the accidental offshoot of a perversely hedonistic escapade of the gods, or of some sickeningly violent massacre between equally divine beings; it’s the deliberate creation of Yahweh for the purpose of providing a place for human beings to dwell, where Yahweh himself walk in their midst “in the cool of the day.”

    4. Finally, the creation narrative serves as the prologue to the Genesis narrative as a whole (which, in turn, is essentially the prologue of the Pentateuch), whose primary story is the overture to the great opera of the skull-crushing seed of the woman in Genesis 3–how Yahweh will himself, with profound lovingkindness, with great tenderness, and by means of a blood sacrifice, glorify himself by undoing the curse and the destruction of the fall. As Hamilton says (and I don’t have the book on hand, but can provide page numbers later if anyone’s interested), “Having orchestrated a realm in which his justice is set on display, Yahweh surprises the condemned with the wonder of free mercy.”

    So these seem to me to be the biggest concerns of the creation narrative. (There are undoubtedly more–like all of Scripture this is a mine of God’s glory whose depths we could never fully plumb!) I just don’t see how the age of the earth matters to ANY of these purposes at all. Furthermore, notice how completely unconcerned the Genesis narrative is with chronology at all! For crying out loud–Genesis 2:4-25 takes place BETWEEN the first two verses IN THE SAME CHAPTER!!!!

    So with all those things in mind, it simply appears to me that asking Genesis to talk about the age of the earth is a lot like asking it to talk about the age of your cat. It’s just not something that I can imagine ever crossing the writer’s mind (be he Moses, as I believe, or be he someone else), and not something that I think any READER of Genesis would have worried about prior to the European Enlightenment.

    But maybe I’m off base here. What do you think, Lyndon?

    • Oh boy.

      Thanks for the kind words Curtis!

      There’s so much here that I’ll need a bit of time to sort through it and respond accordingly. Stay tuned as this may take me a few days…but I’ll post a separate comment so you see it.

    • Okay. I’ll try to toss something back at you here. I definitely appreciate the kind words Curtis. I also can understand not being terribly interested in this issue; there are issues that I should be interested in that I’m simply not that interested in as they’re not really issues that I find “on my plate”.

      As for the age of the earth, I’d agree that the text of Genesis isn’t making a case for the age of the earth. It’s nowhere near the central thrust of the narrative. That being said, there’s a few clear details in the narrative of Genesis that make it really difficult to reconcile with anything other than some sort of YEC (at least in my books); things like the nature of the days of creation, the clear teaching that all mankind descended from a single human pair, the clear teaching that fully functional plant and animal ecosystems were operating in the space of 1 day, the fact that the earth preceded the sun in existence, etc. I don’t know of anytheory of theistic evolution/non YEC creationism that has humanity descending from a single human pair or has the earth being created before the sun.

      Now, as for addressing your specific points:

      1. The purposes of Genesis are to show that the world is created. No contest there.

      2. The purposes of Genesis are “To oppose the creation myths of other ANE cultures”. I call epic foul there, and I call it on Jim Hamilton and a whole lot of others who try to pass of this highly unfounded speculation. This may be shocking to you, but I think Jim Hamilton is simply pulling rabbits out of a hat on this one. I cannot find any solid reasons why Yahweh would be addressing ANE creation myths, just assertions with little foundation. I’ve written on this before, so I’ll simply link you to this. The short argument is that the context of Genesis isn’t other ANE creation myths; that’s an assumption that is simply grabbed out of thin air and isn’t addressed anywhere in the scripture.

      3. See point 2. Yahweh has ownership because he is the creator, yes.

      4. You said “the creation narrative serves as the prologue to the Genesis narrative as a whole” and I’d say that is simply untrue. I’ve written about the structure of Genesis here. The primary story of Genesis is the seed? Uh, why would you say that? Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a totally different pericope (as you’ve pointed out yourself), and that fact overthrows your point about 2:4-25 taking place between 2:1-2. That’s also simply untrue as it’s an entirely different pericope.

      Genesis doesn’t discuss the age of the earth, but I’ve never heard anything close to a solid case for an old earth that can make sense of the facts of the historical narrative of Genesis 1:1-2:3.

      I apologize in advance if this comes across as unkind or tart. I’m on my way to bed and haven’t slept much as my 2-year-old bit a chunk out of his tongue and has kept my wife and myself up for the last 2 days.

      • Yikes! I was all set to offer a snarky jab about how you should’ve taken me out for coffee first, but your poor kid! Thanks for the response, Lyndon–looking forward to thinking about it more over the next few days. Appreciate you, brother–enjoy your weekend!

        • Yup. It seems to be a creation vs. evolution cartoon. The creation position is where the young vs. old question comes up; that’s not even an issue for evolutionists…

          …which just made me think.

          I should go onto the Biologos forums and argue for Young Earth Evolutionism! Ha!

      • My side point was that God could have designed and made the snowmen with the appearance of age. The main point being that He, an Intelligent Designer, created the snowmen, and that they couldn’t evolve out of random chance.

        Going back to the side point… it’s not of fellowship-breaking importance to contentiously harp on the age of the snowman (or the age of the earth).

        • Well, I hear a similar line all the time.

          God can do whatever he desires:

          He could make all things instantaneously.

          He could have set off the big bang and sat back for 20+ billion years.

          He could have done any number of things, and you’re right to suggest that its inappropriate to break fellowship with someone on an argument about what God could have possibly done…

          …but that’s not even close to what’s really going on and its not honestly facing the issue.

          The questions is two-fold:

          1. What does God say he did?

          2. What are the reasons for abandoning a straightforward reading of scripture?

          If you answer #1 with a generic “God simply made everything and is responding to pagan deities with his own account of origins”, I’d say that you’re buying a while load of unsubstantiated assumptions from various academics and ignoring almost all the details of the actual text of Genesis. God says a whole lot more than “it was me”, and if a person attempts to chalk up all the details to Genesis being poetry, that same person only reveals how little they know about Hebrew poetry. Genesis lacks colic parallelism, hence it is not poetic; that is a simple statement of fact.

          If you answer #2 with anything beyond “the scriptures themselves explicitly/implicitly necessitate such be the case”, you’re interpreting the text on the basis of something other than the basis of the text itself. That’s also not handling the text in a way that is befitting someone who may claim a belief in the inspiration of scripture, and I have yet to meet someone who arrives at any evolutionary position on the basis of exegesis alone.

          That doesn’t mean I would break fellowship over theistic evolution and it also doesn’t mean that anyone who holds to theistic evolution will eventually embrace other various heresies/heterodox ideas (since all of us are inconsistent with regards to the biblical fidelity of our doctrine), but I do consider it a danger worth warning a brother against.

      • God created Adam fully grown.

        Young Adam Arguer: “He’s only 5 minutes old.”

        Old Adam Arguer: “He’s 25 years old.”

        Creationist Arguer: “God designed and made Adam. He didn’t evolve. You can make an argument that he’s 5 minutes old or 25 years old, and I love you both.”

        • Wait a minute.

          If Adam was made 5 minutes ago, but was when he was made he was created as a mature adult with the physiological/mental development of a 25 year old, how old is he?

          I know we *say* that we can make arguments both ways, but can we really? Does the sheer possibility of an argument necessitate the legitimacy of the hypothetical explanatory option?

          If a 25-year old Adam was made 5 minutes ago, how old would Adam *actually* be, at least in terms of chronological age?

      • Q:: “Would you be satisfied with “a 5 minute old creation that appears to be a 25 year old man”?”

        A: “Sure. Where does that leave us with the issue then?”

        A: With YEC and OEC disputants, the age of the earth dispute being neither a test of faith, nor a test of fellowship.

        • So back where we started?

          I don’t make it a test of orthodoxy, nor a breaking point for fellowship. I find that I’m often the one being pushed aside because I have a firm conviction on the issue, but I don’t bring it up since it’s not really a hobby horse.

          In the circles that I currently travel in, either people are not convicted about the OEC/Theistic Evolution, or they’re quite aggressive about their YEC. I get push back from both sides as many YEC make it a test of orthodoxy…kinda like “cage stage” Calvinists.

  7. I do not see where to reply in line with the comments above.

    First, no where in Scripture does God tell us how old Creation is. Nor did God seem to care about the age of the Earth in the manner we do today.

    I am, again, a 6 day Creationist, but I cannot disassociate from those who are OE or YE Creationists or IDers. I do not find that as a purpose anywhere in Scripture, and definitely not in Genesis 1 & 2 ….

    In fact, if anything, the very existence of Cosmology & Evolutionary Science re-enforces the Sovereignty of God and His act of Creation. How else would Moses have known Light was not ‘created first,’ if God had not told him so? (Genesis 1: 1-3 and Reference “First Three Minutes ….” by Weinberg, or my blog).


  8. I think that the probability is extremely high that Peter did not write II Peter (it is never quoted in the second century – even by heresiologists combatting heretical groups that denied a future bodily second coming, is written in a totally different style from 1 Peter, and is dependent upon Jude – which was probably written after Peter’s death. I find it extremely unlikely that the same Peter who warned “the end of all things is at hand” (I Peter 4:7) would then go on to write about how it was far off.)

  9. No one has mentioned what seems important to me: the physical scientific evidence for an old universe and earth is overwhelming! Galaxies millions and billions of light years away and stars in our own galaxy tens of thousands of light years away. Craters on the moon … if they all happened in the last 6000 years and earth got hit with even a fraction of what hit the moon, it would have made life impossible (if it happened during the flood, the tsunamis would have destroyed the ark). I could go on and on. YEC arguments from science for a young earth I find interesting, but not compelling. Bottom line: general and special revelation both tell us about God and His creation and they don’t contradict each other!!! YEC’ers like Ken Ham pose a vexing choice: “Do you believe the infallible Bible, or do you believe science (taught by fallible people)?” And unfortunately, young people attending university think these are their only choices and they are giving up their faith to pursue science.

    • Kevin, I’m guessing you misunderstood the post and you’ve probably never really reflected on your own epistemology as it relates to empirical science.

      There is no evidence for an 4 billion+ year old earth. None.

      Not a single piece of evidence.

      Let me say that again.

      There is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever, from any empirical discipline under the sun, for any model of origins that contests the model of the Bible.

      There is only data, and the interpretation of data is what makes empirical facts “evidence” for any hypothesis about anything.

      In other words, only when empirical data is interpreted according to a naturalistic and non-catastrophic model of origins does it become evidence for a billions-of-years-old earth. When I take the exact same data and interpret it according to a supernaturalistic and catastrophic model of origins, it looks wildly different. God has revealed, authoritatively, that naturalism and non-catastrophism are false presuppositions about reality, thus every interpretation of data when filtered through those presuppositions is errant.

      That goes for the starlight problem.

      That goes for moon craters.

      That goes for every single piece of empirical data that exists. All of them.

      You may find YEC arguments from science not exactly compelling, but there is no actual argument from Scripture for any other position. The Bible makes a single argument, and that is that Yahweh made the things that are in six solar days by the mechanism of his own divine speech and pinnacled by the creation of a single human pair. I take the creator’s eye-witness account over the speculations of his creation. You had better too, or like I said in the post, you cannot rightly defend the supernatural when it comes to Christ.

      In that case, kiss Christianity goodbye.

      In other words, Old Earth Creationism is not just factually wrong, but morally wrong in that it insinuates that God is in error regarding his revelation of his own act of divine creation

Share your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s