In my most recent journey through the Bible, I’ve made a list of phrases that in the past have been used as colloquialisms in American culture. Because of the general biblical illiteracy in 21st century America, I thought it would be a good idea to identify some of these common phrases as having origin in the Bible, since most people would probably not recognize their origin or its basic meaning. Here are the ones I’ve come up with:
Genesis 3:19 “for dust you are and to dust you will return”
Exodus 3:8 “a land flowing with milk and honey”
Exodus 21:24 “eye for eye, tooth for tooth”
Deuteronomy 32:10 “the apple of his eye”
Job 19:20 “I have escaped by the skin of my teeth”
Proverbs 13:20 “He who walks with the wise grows wiser, but a companion of fools suffers harm”
Proverbs 16:18 “Pride goes before destruction”
Proverbs 17:22 “A cheerful heart is good medicine”
Although not a direct quote, we see the source for the colloquialism “Laughter is the best medicine” as coming from Solomon’s wisdom
Proverbs 17:28 “Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips he is deemed intelligent”
Abraham Lincoln is believed to have said “It is better to be silent and be thought dumb, than to speak and remove all doubt.” Whether he said it or not, the quote clearly has its origin in the Proverbs
Proverbs 27:17 “As iron sharpens iron”
Proverbs :29:24 “The partner of a thief hates his own life”
You can see the colloquialism: “there’s no honor among thieves” as having its genesis in Proverbs 29
Isaiah 22:13 “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die”
Isaiah 40:31 “They will mount up with wings as eagles”
Ecclesiastes 1:9 “there is nothing new under the sun”
Ecclesiastes 1:17 “chasing after the wind”
Ecclesiastes 3:1 “For everything there is a season”
Ecclesiastes 3:2 “A time to be born and a time to die”
Ecclesiastes 3:20 “All are from dust and to dust all return”
Similar to the Genesis 3 phrase, Americans, who have watched movies that have funerals or have attended a funeral will be familiar with the phrase the God created Adam from dust, and while our souls are immortal, our bodies return to the dust in death
Ecclesiastes 4:12 “a cord of 3 strands is not quickly broken”
Ecclesiastes 5:15 “naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will return”
Jeremiah 13:23 “Can a leopard change his spots?”
Daniel 3:27 “Not a single hair on your head is harmed”
Daniel 5 “The writing is on the wall”
This exact phrase does not appear in Daniel, but the promise of impending doom is clearly communicated from God’s hand to Belshazzar for his rebellion and wickedness. The colloquialism is clearly understood to be an inevitable calamity
Hosea 8:7 “reap the whirlwind”
Matthew 3:12 “separate wheat from chaff”
Matthew 5:39 “turn the other cheek”
Matthew 5:43 ” Love your neighbor”
Matthew 5:44 “Love your enemies”
Matthew 6:24 “You cannot serve 2 masters”
Matthew 7:3-5 “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”
Matthew 7:10 “Do to others as you’d have them do to you”
Matthew 15:14 “blind leading the blind”
Matthew 25:32 “separate sheep from the goats”
Matthew 27:24 “he took water and washed his hands before the crowd saying ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood'”
Again we don’t see the exact phrase, but we hear people say “I wash my hands of this” as if to declare themselves innocent/unaffiliated of/with a failing or guilty entity
Mark 8:36 “What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul”
Mark 12:17 “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”
Luke 14:27 “anyone who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy to be my disciple.” The colloquialism is usually phrased “It’s my cross to bear” or something similar
Luke 16:10 “Whoever can be trusted with very little can be trusted with much. Whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much”
Acts 20:35 “More blessed to give than to receive”
1 Corinthians 15:32 “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die”
1 Corinthians 15:33 “Bad company ruins good morals”
I’m sure there are many that I missed. Feel free to add them in the comments. The idea behind this post is the importance of an understanding of the Bible. At one time, the American populace had a much greater knowledge of God’s eternal word. So colloquialisms that appeared in the lexicon were well understood because of how familiar Americans were with the scripture.
Fathers, read the Bible. Fathers, read the Bible with your family. Make sure that your family has a deep and abiding knowledge of the Bible
Fitting evolution into Christianity is like forcing a square peg in a round hole
Although much ink and digital pixels have been spilled on a possible answer to this question, what follows will be the definitive answer to the question. No need for anymore searching or endless debate: THIS is it!
Well, perhaps not. Long after I’m gone, I’m sure theistic evolutionists will still be trying to syncretize worldliness into the Bible, but there’s really no need: the Bible is clear – evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Let’s investigate
Definitions
First we need some definitions. What is Christianity? In my personal definition, Christianity is the logical understanding and application of what God has revealed in the Bible. Wikipedia defines Christianity as
This definition will do as there is plenty of overlap between the 2.
Now for the more difficult one. What is evolution? From the various atheists and theistic evolutionists online definition 1 might be something like:
“Evolution means you’re not the same as your parents”
“Evolution is science. No theory has more evidence to support it than evolution”
Who could argue with the idea that biological creatures change? No one. Creationists and evolutionists agree that creatures change. Who could argue with the idea that allele frequencies change within a population over time? No one. Creationists and evolutionists agree that allele frequencies change. Who could argue with the idea that you’re not the same as your parents? No one.
Regarding the claim that “evolution is science“, I heartily disagree. Science is the “system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method.” Creationists agree with this definition of science…in fact it was young earth creationists like Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Joule, Lister, Pascal and Kepler that helped kick start their respective branches of science. A common pejorative from theistic evolutionists to their creationist brothers is “science-denier” as if to impugn a denial of physics, zoology, mathematics, chemistry, magnetology, geology and the like simply because we reject biological evolution. It’s an ad hominem fallacy aimed at discrediting arguments from Christians, who uphold the Bible as the magisterial authority, so that theistic evolutionists can escape from dealing with the arguments themselves. Now, there are *scientists* who believe the whole theory of evolution (defined below), but the scientific method cannot duplicate a dinosaur becoming a bird via natural selection acting on random mutations or a land vertibrate changing into a whale with numerous successive slight modifications. That is all assumed, and since the scientific method cannot repeat this process, evolution (as shown below in Definition 2) is not science. It is an ideology, and as we all well know, it is a tyrannical ideology that suffers no dissent.
Alleles
Sidebar: What is an allele? Wikipedia defines it as “a variant of the sequence of nucleotides at a particular location on a DNA molecule.” An example of an allele would be eye color or blood type. There is variability in the DNA that can produce different eye colors, but not every variant is expressed in each phenotype. Genetics has shown that changes in allele frequency produce different eye colors in different generations due to the existing variability stored within the alleles. Evolutionists love to say that “evolution is simply the change in allele frequency within a population over time.” And creationists agree with this. So what’s the big deal about alleles? Evolutionists believe that alleles have been constructed by an accumulation of random mutations. It’s very much akin to the belief that the operating system that controls the hardware on a phone was aggregated by random keystrokes. Creationists do not grant this origins story of alleles to the evolutionists. Yes, alleles exist. Yes, alleles contain variability, but this variability has existed from the beginning. It has not been cobbled together randomly. Yes, we see the variability of eye colors, hair colors, and blood types because that information ALREADY EXISTS in the genome. Natural selection is a descriptive process of the selecting of existing information for preservation, but this results in a LOSS of information…not the creation of it. Since there is no evidence for the construction of alleles via natural selection acting on random mutations, we (creationists) do not grant the use of alleles to evolutionists. They cannot account for alleles.
So that my detractors do not think I have misrepresented evolution in my shortened definition, here is Wikipedia’s definition of evolution. They too recognize the key elements of
single common ancestor of all life (hypothetical as evidence for LUCA is missing)
natural selection acting on random mutations is the mechanism
billions of years are necessary
all biological life including mankind are the result of the natural processes that require no intelligent intervention
If we want to determine by Darwin’s own metric of what makes his theory possible (“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”), then all biology must be able to be explained by natural selection acting on random mutations (even though Darwin was unaware of the specifics of mutations, his theory includes the modifications which we now know is mutations)
THIS (definition 2) is what Christians, who accept the Bible, are arguing against when we say that evolution is not compatible with Christianity. Definition 2 focuses on the historical nature of biological life on earth, and has nothing to do with what’s measured/repeatable in the laboratory. Many times, theistic evolutionists join their God-denying colleagues in claiming that evolution is science, but this is the motte-and-bailey fallacy. When Christians rightly voice that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, both theistic evolutionists and their comrades declare with mockery “Evolution is just change! How can you deny change? Are you the same are your parents? You’re driving people away from Christianity if you tell them that they can’t trust science!” Notice below how theistic evolutionist, Bishop, decries the idea that me, a Christian, would question evolution when he defines evolution as science itself…and the atheist ankle-biters snuggle in warmly to those who embrace evolution.
Definition 1 is the motte: an easily defensible position that is uncontroversial. They retreat to the motte and throw rhetorical stones at the Christian “heretics” for denying something obvious. When in reality the Christians, who accept the Bible, are using Definition 2 of evolution, (in this case, the bailey) which is completely at odds with the Bible. Since everyone agrees that change happens, we will no longer consider Definition 1 as part of this article. Henceforth, Definition 2 is the only idea that is considered when referencing evolution.
To elucidate just a bit more about the theory of evolution, we should talk about natural selection, which is a description of the survival of the fittest…or more recently “the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype”. Essentially, natural selection is the idea that the those creatures, who are less fit, are removed from the population. Those creatures with the greatest number of offspring are said to have higher fitness. The culling of the less fit is central to the theory. Richard Dawkins employed the phrase “red in tooth and claw” (which arose in Darwin’s day to describe the pitiless indifference of nature) to summarize the cruel behaviors of the doctrine of survival of the fittest. For the fittest to pass on the traits that make them the most fit, the death of their lesser peers must take place, and it takes a great deal of time to get fixation within a species. Death and time are the heroes of evolution
Compatibility
Let’s look at what the Bible says about the past as opposed to what advocates of evolution teach. The chart below shows some of the differences:
1 Cor 15:45 and Gen 3:20 confirm that Adam and Eve were the original human pair from whom all humans descended
Between 250K and 350K years ago a population of between 1000 and 10,000 (depending on which theory you believe) anatomically modern humans were mostly isolated from populations of erectus and habilis…although there was some interbreeding between the non-human homo populations
Acts 17:26 confirms that all humans are descended from one man, Noah
About 600K years ago, Homo Heidelbergensis emerged. From this stock along with some cross-breeding with other pre-human hominins produced a population of homo sapiens
Caveats
As a Christian, who accepts the Bible in its literary context and genre to mean that God created the universe in 6 calendar days about 6000 years ago, I recognize that there are Christian brothers and sisters, who disagree strongly with me. They have worked hard to bring into concordance with the Bible, the teachings of evolutionists. So, my caveat is that while theistic evolutionists laboriously strive to harmonize Christianity with evolution, it does not mean that they are not Christians. One is not saved by the quantity of correct information that one believes. One is saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ our Redeemer alone! This article is intended to show their inconsistencies and failed attempts to ‘put a square peg in a round hole’.
Objections
Let’s now analyze the differences from the table above and the attempted rescue devices that theistic evolutionists employ.
Difference 1: The order of creation in the Bible is different than the order taught by advocates of evolution. The theistic evolutionist is left with 2 choices:
“The Bible is not a science textbook. It wasn’t intending to tell us a specific order of creation. It’s just a theological treatise telling us that God is the Creator.“
“Since Moses didn’t know about modern science, he could only write from what he knew. And since God’s revelation in the book of nature in evolution is right, we can correct Moses’s ignorance. Moses is just writing poetically as a polemic against pagan creation narratives.“
The 1st attempt at a resolution is both a category error and shows a low view of scripture. I agree that the Bible is NOT a science textbook…it is mostly a history book (although it is so MUCH MORE than a history book), but in questions of history, historical documentation is the better tool for answering than forensics (extrapolation). The assumption exists that science must answer questions about the past, but when we want to know the age of the statue of liberty, Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon, or the founding of Jerusalem, historical documentation trumps scientific extrapolation every time. The theistic evolutionist might counter with “But those are all examples that exist in human history. What about pre-human history?” And the answer is that there were only 5 calendar days prior to human history according to the Bible, and Jesus confirms that mankind was created at the beginning of creation. Why disagree with Jesus?
The 2nd attempt at a resolution (very much like the 1st attempt) takes a very low view of scripture. As Christians, the Bible is our magisterial authority, but theistic evolutionists would rather take what modern academics are saying and redefine the Bible to bring it into concordance with the modern paradigm. Genesis is written as history. It does not resemble the Hebrew poetry of the Psalms. All of the biblical authors regarded Genesis as history.
Difference 2: The Bible says that the original human pair, Adam and Eve, are the progenitors of the entire human race. Theistic evolutionists (for the most part) do not accept this and are left with 2 choices:
“Adam and Eve are just figurative archetypes. Because the science tells us that the genetics requires a population of about 10,000, there’s no way that an original pair could produce all of the variance we see today.“
Dr. Swamidass “It’s just a genealogical ancestry…not a genetic one. In this scenario, Adam and Eve are created de novo by God (from dust and a rib, as per Genesis) in a distinct act, separate from the evolved population. Their offspring then intermarry with this outside group, and over time, their genealogical lineage spreads universally.“
In the 1st attempt, we see again the idea that the modern academic paradigm is superior to the biblical text itself. It is a low view of scripture. They ignore what God has said in favor of what the loudest of the lab coats have assumed about the origins of humanity. If you’re interested in what Christian geneticists have said about the claims of the evolutionists, see Dr. Robert Carter’s research and Nathaniel Jeanson’s research.
While a clever attempt, Dr. Swamidass does not take into account the theological problem of death of humans prior to sin or the importance of the Kinsman Redeemer being able to atone for the sins of those to whom He is related. If there were pre-Adamite humans, they would not be eligible for redemption. It’s a low view of scripture and bad theology
Difference 3: The Bible says that the heavens, the Earth, the seas and all that is in them was created in 6 days and that mankind was formed at the beginning of creation. The theistic evolutionist, who vehemently disagrees with what the text says, would say
“Science has determined the age of the universe and the Earth to be 13.8 billion and 4.5 billion years old respectively, so the Bible needs to be interpreted in light of what the science says.“
To argue that this view is NOT a low view of scripture is illogical. Because the theistic evolutionist chooses to uphold the modern paradigm as preeminent as the interpretive authority shows clearly that although scientific paradigms have failed over and over, they’ve been deceived into believing that THIS time, the naturalistic view is correct. Scientific paradigms have been shown to be false time and again. From when the scientific consensus believed in geocentrism, to the time when the scientific consensus believed in phlogiston, to when the scientific consensus believed that blood-letting helped sick patients, to the time when the scientific consensus believed in spontaneous generation, to the time when the scientific consensus believed in an impending ice age in the 1970s, and when the scientific consensus believed that everyone should eat more carbohydrates according to the food pyramid, to the time when the scientific consensus believed that a cloth mask would protect everyone from the most deadly virus in human history…all falsified. But maybe the current tyrannical scientific consensus of evolution with work
The Bible could not be MORE clear that the days of Genesis 1 are clear 24hr calendar days. While there is flexibility in the Hebrew word for day (yom), we can look at the context of Gen 1 to find the boundaries of the word. Since the context bounds yom by ordinal sequentials and evening/morning (and all biblical examples where both of those exist require the text to be understood as a calendar day) we know that the days of Genesis 1 are calendar days. We also see from Ex 20:9-11 that God expected his people to work for the same amount of time that He did during his creative works before sabbath. Since God’s people were not expected to work for 6 epochs (as would be necessary for evolution), we have confirmation from the Bible itself that God created in six calendar days. Sometimes, the theistic evolutionists want to say that it’s just a pattern, but for that to be true, they have to interpret the same word from the same author to the same audience in the same context be interpreted completely different. It’s bad hermeneutics.
Even John Walton, who is no friend to young earth creationists, open admits on pg 90-91 of his book that the text of Genesis 1 demands that yom must be interpreted as 24hr days.
Difference 4: While the Bible says that prior to sin animals were to be vegetarian only, advocates of theistic evolution would propose the incompatible idea that evolution would never restricted animals to eating only plants.
“Creatures today consume meat, and the fossils recovered in the geologic layers have sharp teeth. So, according to evolution, animals had no dietary boundaries. The Bible must have been talking about something else. It’s not a command. It’s just saying that plants are important to the life cycle.”
Again, their attempt at a reconciliation between the theory of evolution and the Bible takes a low view of scripture. Evolution is their highest authority, so that Bible must be changed to accommodate this view of continual violence, death, misery, and predation prior to the fall into sin. The full refutation of this idea is shown here, but is essentially: since God commanded man not to consume meat in Gen 1:28-30, God gave the same command to animals. We know it was a command because God gave a clear rescinding of his vegetarian command to Noah in Gen 9:2. The theory of evolution remains incompatible with Christianity
Difference 5: The Bible says that animals are to reproduce after their kind. Typically theistic evolutionists and God-deniers have the same lazy responses (although they are not arguments) “Kind isn’t a scientific word” and “kind is just species“. If they attempt to make an argument to reconcile evolution to the Bible, it is only that the men who wrote the Bible were middle eastern goat-herders or some similar pejorative that dismisses the biblical authors as unlearned.
Again, the theistic evolutionary view takes a low view of scripture. In order to try to reconcile their view with the Bible, they intentionally subject the Bible to the modern paradigm of evolution.
Difference 6: The Bible says that the sin of mankind brought death into creation. The Bible also refers to death as “the last enemy to be destroyed”, so it is not a benign cohabiter with life in a “very good” creation. In the story of evolution, death of the unfit for millions or billions of generations brought about mankind. In their view, death is the hero. Theistic evolutionists have a few options in trying to deal with this obvious difference
“The sin of mankind only brought about the death of humans. The Bible says NOTHING about the death of animals“
“Death is not bad. We have to die to get to heaven“
“Physical death has always been a part of creation. Adam’s sin only brought spiritual death“
In bullet point 1, the evolutionist tries to belittle the bloodshed, misery, and death of animals as simply part of the circle of life. This disparagement of God’s creation isn’t as much a low view of scripture but is a low view of animals, animal suffering, creation, and the catastrophic effects of sin itself. Romans 8:20-22 paints a completely different picture than evolutionists would sketch
The effects of sin changed all of creation from one of freedom, peace, and abundant fruitfulness to subjection to futility, groaning, and corruption. Evolution dismisses the curse and effects of sin as merely spiritual. You can see and even more comprehensive rebuttal of this point here.
In the 2nd bullet point, the evolutionist argues that death is not that bad. But this is the exact opposite of what the Bible says. In 1 Cor 15:26 Paul describes death as the “last enemy to be destroyed.” Death (as a curse for sin) is an enemy. The belief of the evolutionist requires them to have a low view of scripture.
In the 3rd bullet point, the evolutionist argues that sin brought only a spiritual death, but this is naive to the fact that Jesus died the most horrendous PHYSICAL death in crucifixion. Theologically, it was his physical death and resurrection that paid for the sins of humanity. Notice the curses for sin: death, suffering, and thorns from Genesis 3. At the crucifixion, Jesus took upon Himself all of these curses to atone for the sins of his people (Isa 53). The Bible rejects the idea that Adam’s sin brought only physical death only to humans
Difference 7: The Bible says that thorns are a curse of the sin of mankind. But according to the evolutionary story, thorns were produced naturally by plants in the ever-escalating warfare between plant reproduction and herbivores. Since thorns are found in geologic layers, which evolutionists believe were buried prior to mankind, evolutionists have to try to resolve the difference. Creationists, who accept the teachings of the Bible, know that thorns are a curse for sin, and that the thorns buried deep are a result of the judgment of the global flood. How do evolutionists try to resolve the difference?
“Thorns aren’t a curse of sin. It’s just an allegory“
Again, evolutionists take a low view of scripture, because they take naturalistic interpretations from today, ignore the effects of the Genesis 6-9 worldwide flood, and redefine the biblical text.
Difference 8: The Bible clearly teaches that Adam and Eve were created directly from God via the dust and Adam’s side respectively. Evolution teaches that a small population (about 10k) of humans evolved traits to become human. To be fair, there are some theistic evolutionists, who hold to the standard evolutionary model for all biological life except humans and believe that God did specially create humanity in Adam and Eve. While they choose to uphold the Bible in this case, it is now destructive to their theory of evolution as the standard (current) model is taught as if it can account for all human traits in the same way that it can supposedly account for all other biological traits. The group that denies special creation of mankind, who accept the theory of evolution in its entirety, have to resolve this difference somehow
“The Bible isn’t a science textbook. It’s just a theological treatise about God being the Creator. He didn’t say *how* He did his creative works. We’re only supposed to know from the Bible that He started everything. There was no initial human pair Adam or Eve. That’s a myth.“
That is a low view of scripture. They mythologize a historical text simply to accommodate the teachings of the modern paradigm. It ignites serious theological problems with who is eligible for salvation through the blood sacrifice of the Kinsman Redeemer, and it incinerates the authority of scripture that teaches an unbroken royal lineage from Adam to Jesus.
Difference 9: The Bible says that there was a global flood and from Noah (the 1 man) and his family of 8, who got off the ark, God created all the nations of mankind (Genesis 10-11). Theistic evolutionists deny the global flood and much like they say in both Differences 2 and 8, they choose to believe the assumptions of evolution at the expense of the Bible. How do they resolve the difference?
“There is absolutely NO evidence for a global flood. Human lineage cannot be traced back to a single man or woman. You misinterpret the text. You think that your interpretation is the same as the Bible itself.“
Denying the global flood of Noah’s day puts theistic evolutionists as allies with the scoffers, who Peter claims will deny that “the world was deluged and destroyed”. It’s less than a low view of scripture; it’s willful ignorance…another term Peter uses. The resolution of difference 9 is much like all of the other differences: take well-understood words and redefine them in accordance with modern sensibilities rather than how the words are used in the text of scripture itself: a low view of scripture
Conclusion
Some theistic evolutionists even declare that “there are no differences between the Bible and the theory of evolution“, but as you can see: the differences are stark, and the attempts to bring resolution destroys the Bible, the theory of evolution, or language itself. THIS is what makes the theory of evolution and Christianity incompatible. Anyone, who might be unfamiliar with the theory of evolution, wouldn’t read the Bible and think “It’s clear in the Bible that God was completely absent from creation and had no interaction with material. Instead He allowed a process of gradual formation over billions of years of death and suffering to produce both the extinct and extant creatures including humans.”
In the same way, no one reads the writings of the evolutionists and concludes, “Clearly there is intricate and purposeful design from the interference of a supreme intelligence seen in every creature. We can see from nature that the supreme intelligence loves humanity and wants humanity to have dominion over the things that he/she made.”
These two opposing stories don’t fit; they are incompatible. Any attempt to bring them into concordance fundamentally changes either the biblical account or the evolutionary account or both. If a theistic evolutionist wants to bring concordance, they must redefine the biblical text, change the order of creation, and change the evolutionary story to say “God-dun-it-differently-than-He-said-but-just-like-evolution-says”. The most common practice among theistic evolutionists is the marginalize the Genesis account by declaring it to be allegory. In much the same way that Michael Scott from the Office shouts out “I declare BANKRUPTCY!!!”, shouting that “Genesis is ALLEGORY!!!” is nothing more than bluster. In fact, it is detrimental to the authority of scripture.
If one can marginalize parts of the Bible as simply allegorical just because it does not comport with modern sensibilities like evolution, then the Bible loses its authority. By the same interpretive principles that theistic evolutionists change the Bible to accommodate evolution, LGBTQ+ people change the Bible to accommodate THEIR perversions. The progressive woke “Christians” also change the Bible to accommodate their racist teachings. Paul warns Christians over and over not to allow trendy worldly philosophies to influence the gospel of Jesus found in His Eternal Word.
So, is evolution compatible with Christianity? Most definitely not
Post Script
With regards to the claim that “there is absolutely no evidence of a global flood“, there is ubiquitous evidence of a global flood. It is true that for over 100 years almost every university has taught that there was no global flood, so it’s no surprise that almost all academics would believe what they’ve been taught. But when one starts with the truth of scripture, which says that there was a flood that covered “all the high mountains under the entire heavens”, the evidence is impossible to ignore. The evidence is literally everywhere!
In this debate, my Christian friend @CuriousChristianity attempted to argue the positive for this case, and I took the much easier (and biblical) case for the negative
Opening
Americans on average go through 12 years of public school indoctrination in evolution. Those, who go to college and those who get advanced degrees get 4, 6 or 8 more years of deeper indoctrination into the ideas that animals have been dying for millions of years. Even those who don’t get advanced degrees are saturated with movies and tv shows and news bulletins and flyers and conversations among work associates that bloodshed and death are pervasive for the assumed millions of years of evolutionary development. Some would call this science, but it is at the very least a philosophical idea that is deeply ingrained in 21st century thinking. It takes courage and discernment not to drink in and believe the worldly philosophy of evolutionism as a basic assumption. My friend may or may not believe in evolution, but the influence of the philosophies of death for millions of years is both pervasive and assumed in this culture. Many Christians who have been indoctrinated in the philosophy of death for millions of years search for holes in the text of the Bible to see if there is room to insert these outside ideas of death and suffering before the fall into sin. See if in this debate, you can discern how the assumptions of death have influenced the arguments of my friend rather than starting instead with the eternal word of God.
My case will have 3 points: Good, Food and Blood
Good
My friend has the very unenviable task of building the case that the Bible teaches that animals died before the fall of mankind. It is particularly difficult since no where in the Bible will you find death before the fall. He might make some assumptions and you’ll likely hear him try to talk about how good death really is, but please pray for my friend: his case is hopeless
During the creation account in Genesis 1 God declares his creation to be good 7 times and the 7th time, He declared it to be very good. What does the Hebrew word (tove) mean? Those, who hold to the temple inauguration view (like my opponent) will say it means “functional” or “ready”. Does this hold up to a textual analysis from Moses, in the same context to the same audience?
Gen 1:31 “God saw all that He had made, and it was very functional”
Gen 2:17 “But you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of functional and dysfunctional”
Gen 3:22 “Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing functionality and dysfunction”
Of course, this does not make any sense, but this is what the guru, John Walton, would have us believe from p50 of his book The Lost World of Genesis, where he says: “the meaning of the repeated formula ‘it was good’, which I propose refers to functioning properly…functional readiness”
This is the trendy tactic for Walton’s followers to get around the serious problem of animal death. If they can redefine good to have nothing to do with sin/morality or the fall, then they can accept the modern paradigm’s view that animal death has been happening for millions of years (or as they might say “for an unknown amount of time). But if good has to do with the absence of evil or the antithesis of evil/harm/destruction, then those who hold to this view have a serious theological problem.
This word good H2896 tove (tob) is used to describe God Himself at least 27 times in the old testament. Are we to believe Walton’s definition that the Almighty is functional? 40 times in the old testament tove is paired with ra (evil) H7451 as its inverse. And we clearly see from Isa 11:6-9 that the destruction caused by the fall includes predatory destruction. The Apostle Pual picks up this seamless theme in scripture that during creation week there was an absence of corruption but because of the curse of sin “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.”
If my friend’s case is true, then suffering, cancer, and death are “very good”. But I Cor 15:26 tells us that “the final to be destroyed is death”.
If good is to have any meaning at all, then it cannot include suffering, harm, destruction and death as would be necessary for my friend’s case
Food
Genesis 1:28-29 has 5 commands
Be fruitful
Fill the earth
Subdue it
Have dominion over the animals
You shall have them (green plants) for good
Gen 1:30 relates the 5th command of God to “every beast of the field, every bird of the heavens & everything that creeps on the earth – everything that has the breath of life”
Predation is shown to be forbidden. Humans SHALL eat the green plants for food & those under man’s dominion shall eat green plants. Why would we assume that those under Adam’s jurisdiction be granted a freedom to consume meat that was denied to humanity?
If you doubt that the Genesis 1 command to eat only the green plants is NOT a command, we can look to the recreation language of God after the global flood in Genesis 9
Gen 9:1-3 “And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground amd all the fish of the seas. Into your hand they are now delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood”
Again we see the commands of God to be fruitful, fill the earth, subdue it and have dominion over animals. But the 5th command is freed of the restriction of animal consumption. This pattern at the creation and recreation is apparent and even if not in words, is logically denied by my friend. There’s every reason to believe Gen 1:29 is also a command for humans because this command is reversed in Genesis 9. And by deduction, we see that the animals are subject to God’s pre-fall dietary commands as well – to be vegetarian
Blood
The 1st recorded bloodshed in the Bible is the penal substitutionary atoning sacrifice of an animal in the garden by God Himself to cover the sins of Adam and Eve. The skin of this animal was used to cover their nakedness. This picture of the eventual bloodshed of Jesus was represented in the garden by the 1st recorded death of an animal. Without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness
Before the fall, God’s creation was very good – completely absent of evil/harm/destruction/predation and God promises that his creation will be restored to a state that is absent of evil/harm/destruction/predation through the redemptive work of Jesus. There was no room for animal death suffering or predation in God’s very good creation prior to the fall. As the writer of Hebrews tells us “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness”. Has there been millions of years of needless suffering, bloodshed, and death in a world that God called very good as Walton tells us? Or as Romans 8 tells us, did the whole of creation become subjected to its bondage to corruption and groaning because of the sin of mankind?
It would be unexpected (according to my friend’s view) for something as meaningless as the bloodshed and death of animals to represent the atoning bloodshed of the Savior. It’s discordant with all of scripture to assume that there was some unknown epoch of meaningless bloodshed/death of animals that suddenly became the picture of Jesus’s redemptive sacrifice. But it is perfectly aligned with the teaching of the Bible that no bloodshed occurred until mankind sinned. The Spirit revealed to the writer of Hebrews how animal death isn’t meaningless as would be the logical result of my friend’s view.
Hebrews 9:13-22 “For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.”
All of the Bible is about Jesus as seen in Luke 24:44-45. The picture of the bloodshed of Jesus was represented in the bloodshed of animals as recorded for the 1st time after Adam/Eve had sinned. There is a gaping theological hole in the argument that rather than there being representative significance to the bloodshed of animals, the bloodshed and death of animals is meaningless because it happened for millions of years prior to the curse of sin. It is an unwitting diminution of the blood sacrifice of Jesus
Closing
As you can see from the video, the Bible does NOT teach that animals died before the fall. You have to appreciate the effort by my friend, but he had an impossible task. The assumptions and speculations he has made are just not found in the text itself.
There is great symmetry between the old and new creation. The Bible has a clear chiastic structure which we can see when looked at as a whole. God’s original good creation was cursed by bondage to corruption and death because of man’s sin. But because of what Jesus has done as the prophets & Revelation reveal, God will restore creation to a state that will be absent of evil and harm. This redemptive plan brings glory to Jesus. The resurrection of Jesus has power to redeem all of creation from its bondage to suffering, corruption and to defeat the last enemy: death.
Be brave and discerning dear Christians. Though the dominant paradigm is saturated with worldly philosophies like evolution and deep time, we need not be captive to this kind of thinking. We have the mind of Christ, and out thinking should be shaped according to Christ’s revelation and for His glory
The Bible tells us that humans are made in the image of God. As image bearers, humans were empowered to uphold God’s dominion over all of his lovely creation. Genesis tells us that the curses for sin were thorns, suffering, and death. Jesus took each of these curses upon Himself at the cross. Denying that the curses for sin had no effect on the creation over which mankind had dominion, limits both the universally destructive power of sin AND the redemptive work of Jesus, whose power is even greater than that of sin. His death and resurrection heals not just the hearts of the repentant, but restores the relationships of the wolf and the lamb, the leopard with the goat, the calf and the lion. There will no longer be harm and destruction that has pervaded this sin-cursed creation.
Post Debate Discussion
During the debate, Adam said, “We should let God define good”. And I heartily agree. When we let scripture speak for itself, goodness is clearly an absence of evil/harm/death. God uses the Hebrew word for good (tob, H2896) to describe Himself at least 27 times in the old testament. And at least 45 times in the old testament God contrasts good (tob) with evil (ra, H7451). The Hebrew word ra means evil, harm or destruction. The definition of good is the absence of evil, harm, & destruction. So, Adam’s entire case is discordant with what the Bible teaches. So, yes – Let God define what is good
While the argument about the tree of life is a good one, it is easily shown to be insufficient to overcome the teaching from scripture that everything in creation was very good before the fall. And since the Bible (Rev 22:2) tells us that the tree of life is for the *healing* of the nations. This healing is easily inferred to be from the mortal wound of sin. Without sin, there would be no need for healing.
What about plants or bacteria or spiders (as Adam brought up several times in the debate? Plants, while categorized as alive today, are really just a self-replicating food source. As for the others, see the article here.
If you are unfamiliar with the misery, suffering, bloodshed, and harm that animals deal with, follow these accounts on X. These are the behaviors that old earthers think are part of a “very good” creation for millions of years prior to the sin of mankind
@TheBrutalNature
@BrutaINature1
@TheeDarkCircle
Some more thoughts about how God views blood as important, check out these passages:
So animal blood, while much less valuable than the blood of Christ, is shown to be valuable for covering sins. The shedding of animal blood is the picture of Christ’s blood, so it is not insignificant as would be necessary in the views of old earthism. Predation and death of animals would not be expected from a biblical view. It is only the worldly philosophies that bring in the ideas of perpetual predation and animal death prior to the sin of mankind
Don’t overlook the effects of the cultural saturation of evolution in the arguments of my friend. The myth millions of years of death and suffering are so engrained in the cultural milieu, that Adam just assumes death has been a part of history for that long. It’s definitely not a biblical teaching. It comes from outside the Bible. So, we can say with certainty that the Bible teaches that animals did NOT die before the fall
In response to the Pharisees question of whether a man can lawfully divorce his wife, Jesus responded that divorce was only permitted because of the hardness of their heart. It is recorded in Mark 10:6 that Jesus said: “But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” (bold added by me)
This phrase comes up from time to time in discussions about young earth vs. old earth. Young earth creationists say that this is proof that Jesus was a young earth creationist. Old earth creationists have said things like:
“This is just the beginning of mankind”
“This is just the beginning of marriage”
“Mankind wasn’t made at the beginning – Adam was made at some unknown time after creation”
“Jesus didn’t really know the science”
All of those responses do not take the words themselves into account. Jesus said “the beginning of creation”. He did NOT say “the beginning of mankind” or “the beginning of marriage”.
But what about the 3rd bullet point: “Mankind wasn’t made at the beginning. Adam was made at some unknown time after creation” ? In this point, the old earther mischaracterizes the word “beginning” as if it can only mean the initial picosecond (what’s smaller than a picosecond?) of creation. Let’s look at a couple of analogies to show that the old earther demands a hypocritical and draconian misunderstanding of the word: beginning.
Consider the four year term of a president. The 47th president of the United States will be inaugurated in a few months. Would it be reasonable to say that the ‘beginning’ of his term includes only the first breath after taking the oath of office and nothing else? No, of course not. Would it be reasonable to say that the ‘beginning’ of the 47th president’s term included January 21st? 22nd? the first 100 days? Yes. Yes. Yes. The old earther makes an unreasonable demand of the word.
How about the 100m dash? The fastest reaction time allowed for starting a 100m race after the starting notification is 1/10 of a second. If it takes approximately 10 seconds for the finest athletes to run the 100 meter race, then the part of the race where the runner has not even responded to the starting signal is about 1/100 of the race. Commentators speak of the sprinter’s start as the first 10 meters (the beginning) of the race. After the starter’s gun goes off, sprinter’s cannot even begin to move until a 100 billion picoseconds have passed. Certainly, the beginning of the race can include 100 billion picoseconds before the athlete can even move. Yes?
Using our 100m dash analogy, if we limit ‘the beginning’ to just the 1/10 of the second before the sprinters even moved, it would still be more than 2000 times greater than the passage of time relative to the length of the race from the creation week of Genesis 1 to 4000 years later when Jesus said “at the beginning of creation”. In other words when Jesus was speaking about the beginning of creation 4000 years after mankind was formed from the dirt, that length of time is 2,000 times smaller than the 1/10 of a second when a sprinter has not even begun to move out of the starting blocks in his 100m race. Certainly it could be said that within the meaning of the word “beginning” we can reasonably include the 1st week – just as Jesus said. If we put Jesus’s words and the beginning of creation on comparative timelines, things come into sharp focus. The green line shows accurately the beginning of creation that correctly accounts for the words of Jesus.
Conversely, if the old earth view (the red line above) were true and mankind was made 13.7 billion years after creation, it would be as though the runners in a 100 meter race were the same distance as the diameter of 3 water molecules from the finish line. This renders the word “beginning” to be meaningless because in all views other than YEC, the beginning can mean all of history. It destroys the very meaning of the word “beginning”.
You can see clearly that the old earther is faced with the dilemma of either putting false words in the mouth of Jesus, declaring Jesus to be ignorant of his own creation, or destroying language. If you want to be in accordance with scripture, you’ll accept YEC. It’s the only view that is consistent with scripture. The young earth creationist from above is right – Jesus is a young earth creationist.
Yes…clearly. Here’s the definitive debate and some post debate thoughts to help clarify some things that didn’t get full discussion during our allotted time
Here are my notes for my opening:
The word ‘Trinity’ does not appear anywhere in the Bible, but we know from reading the Bible that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God. And we know that God is One. Anyone who denies the trinity is not a Christian. The biblical teaching of a young earth is more clear than the trinity. While people can deny a young earth and still be a Christian, we must wonder why denial of a young earth is so pervasive. For 18 centuries Christians have universally accepted the biblical account that the earth is young. But with the advent of the modern scientific paradigm of deep time at the end of the 18th century, some in the church began to look for ways to bring the biblical account into concordance with that deep time paradigm. It’s a trendy fad with many different ideas on how to do so. From postulating that days actually mean eons to inventing a billions of years gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, the ideas have been creative. The trendiest of ideas that is hyperbolically 15 minutes old, is that Genesis is agnostic to ideas of age and does not deal with “material” creation; just its functional ordering due to the influence of the writings of the Hittites, Sumerians, and other ancient near eastern people groups that were judged with destruction for their wickedness. ALL of these trendy ideas have one thing in common – a specialized guru who tells you that the words don’t mean what they are commonly understood to mean. They mean something unique that only the guru with his secret knowledge can reveal. They say that it is the text of scripture that must be redefined so that the Bible can be brought into alignment with the emergent dominant paradigm.
Is it valid to consider trendy ideas to make the Bible concordant with the worldly philosophies, or should we as Christians uphold the authority of scripture as the magisterial principium? If words have meaning at all, then accepting the Bible’s clear teaching of what we now call young earth creation is self-evident. It is at the expense of denying language itself that fellow brothers in Christ deny that the Bible teaches what I will defend tonight (Does the Bible teach that the earth is young?)
The earth, the universe and everything in it was created in 6 calendar days as the Bible says
The earth was created about 6000 years ago because of the ages given in the corresponding accounts of the unbroken royal lineage of the Seed from Adam -> Abram in Genesis/Chronicles and from Abram to Jesus (Luke) as the Bible says
Jesus confirms that mankind was made at the beginning of creation as the Bible says in Mark 10:6
As Christians, we do not want to hold onto things that are demonstrably false. Genesis and the rest of scripture very clearly tells us that God created in 6 calendar days about 6000 years ago. Most of God’s word was passed to us from the Spirit inspiring the prophets and apostles, but part of the case for young earth was literally written by the hand of God in stone. This was completely undisputed but for the rarest of outliers for about 1800 years until the end of the 19th century. Suddenly when Darwin’s idea of evolution took hold of academia more time was needed to explain his biological theory, so it became trendy to see if the words in the Bible could be stretched to accommodate these naturalistic ideas.
Text: Genesis 1
“In the beginning” – This may come up later as we identify that one of the trendy tactics today is to stretch the word beginning far beyond all recognition. Hebrew grammar and narrative structure of Genesis 1 doesn’t permit a time gap between verses 1 and 2. The waw consecutive (“and”) at the beginning of verse 2 in Hebrew implies a direct sequence of events
Use of the word yom (meaning day) and it’s literally defined there in Genesis 1
Why did God not use any of the deep time words like:
Yamim (plural of yom) – Not used
Qedem (days of old) – Not used
Olam (days of old) – Not used
Some might object and say that Moses didn’t understand large numbers like billions of years, so God had to speak to the simpleton with simpleton language, but this objection would be ignorant of the covenant from Gen 22:17 “I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore”, yet God did not communicate to Moses about his creation in this way
The only reason that God would withhold using large words to describe the time it took for Him to create is because it took only 6 calendar days – just as He said
“Sequential days” are confirmed by the ordinal usage of the text. Had God wished to communicate non-sequential days, it would have been quite easy for Him to say something like “some time later” or “many years later” or “as things developed over time”. Instead, He used language that we all understand to mean sequential consecutive days. The point is clear: God was not giving some ambiguous myth. The words of Genesis have meaning of sequential consecutive calendar days
The days are bounded by evening/morning patterns to separate the days. Not eons. Not years. Not months…but only days are bounded by evenings/mornings. God was being very clear that yom means a calendar day in this context
“But Matt! Can’t yom mean a time period like in Genesis 2:4?” Yes! Notice how they always choose Genesis 2:4. No one ever chooses Genesis 1 because the context shows us that the usage of “yom” in Genesis 2:4 is COMPLETELY different than the usage of “yom” in Genesis 1. But I do agree that Yom has flexibility of usage. As faithful Christians we should look to scripture rather than some outside false authority like the scientific paradigm or modern culture or ancient near eastern cultures. Where can we look within scripture to find a usage of “yom” in the context described in Genesis 1 to give us the correct boundary? Ex 20:9-11 and Ex 31:17
“6 days you shall labor and do your work…for in 6 days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them”
In the same way that God’s people are expected to work each week, we can be certain that it took God the same amount of time to create the entire universe because of what the Bible says
Here’s the meat of the matter: Genesis 5 and 11 record the ages when those in the unbroken royal lineage of Jesus fathered their children. The summation of these ages confirm that the earth is indeed young. For those who would object that there may be gaps in the lineage, I ask “Who is missing? How do you know?” For those who would object that it doesn’t necessarily mean they fathered the direct descendant because the Hebrew word Yalad might just mean “was an ancestor of” I reply “it doesn’t matter because the age of the patriarch is mentioned whether it be father or grandfather”. To those who object “why does it have to be an unbroken lineage?” Seed of the woman vs. the seed of the serpent. Genesis tracks the unbroken royal line of the Seed of the woman as each generation looked for healing of the curses of sin. We know that the Matthew lineage has purposeful omissions for purposes of symmetry, but the other lineages (with their ages) show that Jesus is indeed the promised Kinsman Redeemer, who would crush the head of the serpent. Those, who would assume that there are genealogical omissions in Genesis/Chronicles/Luke are faced with the unenviable task of trying to show WHO is missing, how they know it, and how the line of kings remains verifiable in Jesus
Lastly: Mark 10:6 “for at the beginning of creation God made them male and female” Jesus is confirming that it was the beginning when He created everything else that He made mankind. Remember, Jesus is the Creator: He would know. Those who have fallen prey to the lure of the modern scientific paradigm may say “That passage is just about marriage”, but this objection ignores the actual words that Jesus said. Would you contend with Him, that the very specific words that He used are unimportant? If beginning has any meaning at all, then it must be referring to the creation week and not as old earthers claim 13.787 billion years after creation. To say that “the beginning” can mean anything from 14 dozen hours to 13.787 billion years ago renders the word as meaningless. It literally destroys language
Consistency
If fellow brothers who deny YEC would apply the same level of skepticism they do against Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 to other parts of scripture, you might hear:
“Of course the plagues against Egypt were just symbolic. There’s no way that an entire river turned to blood. God was just saying metaphorically that it’s the blood of Jesus that saves you. Besides there’s no record of the Nile turning to blood in Egyptian writings”
“When we look at ancient near eastern writings like the Sumerians, there are many stories like that of Samson, who had superhuman strength, so the Bible’s account of a man whose strength relied on the length of his hair is figurative in nature. Samson, while interesting, is hyperbolic of a leader, who probably existed but never pushed over a building with his hands”
“Jesus didn’t calm a literal storm. If you look at the Greek, you can reasonably surmise that Jesus comforted the storm in the hearts of his disciples. The storm was just a picture of the trauma that his disciples felt in knowing that their teacher would face persecution. Jesus’s words calmed the storm within them”
But it’s inconsistent for YEC deniers to declare “God could not have created the earth/universe in 6 days in the recent past…but it’s totally possible for a virgin to bear a child”
The text demonstrates that the earth (even though it is the oldest entity in the universe) is young, and Christians should not hold beliefs that are demonstrably false.
History
While the biblical text is the ultimate authority, is it worthwhile to see how Christians from the past have understood the text? Of course. If in my reading of the text, I ‘discover’ something that no one else in history ever thought or saw, I should question my own interpretation. To my knowledge, no Christian before the 18th century is recorded to have believed in what we would today call an old earth. To confirm the young earth consensus of the time from the earliest Christians to just over a century ago (a span of about 1800 years), let’s look back at some of those, who wrote about it (I’ll link the work of Ben Kissling in the show notes):
Irenaeus 165 AD – Earth is less than 8000 years old
Theophilus 180 AD – “All the years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5698 years”
Julius Africanus 221AD – From the creation to 221 is 5499 years
Origen 248 AD identified his old earth atheist opponent with the implication that those who would deny the biblical age of less than 10,000 years are “assailants of the Christian faith”
Augustine 426 AD who wrote: “reckoning by the sacred writings (the Bible), not 6000 years have passed”
Johannes Kepler 1619 – Earth was created in 4997BC, so was less than 6800 years at the time of Kepler’s writing
James Ussher 1650 Annals of the World – Earth was created in 4004BC, less than 6100 years old
All Reformers accepted young earth (Did God Create in 6 Days? – Pipa)
Charles Lyell in the late 1800s (while not a Christian, recognized the hold that Christianity and thus the dominant paradigm of his time had on scientific studies) in his writings he wished to “free the science from Moses” which as we all know is Genesis
Jack Repcheck wrote a biography of James Hutton called The Man Who Found Time: “The age of the earth is the wedge that shattered the biblically rooted picture of Earth and separated science from theology”
As Christians, which we both are, we should want to interpret scripture consistently and rightly. Consistently by offering the same level of scrutiny to the passages that conflict with modern sensibilities (like Genesis) as those passages deemed crucial to Christian orthodoxy (like the miracles of Jesus). We’ve established that throughout all of church history before the dark times, everyone understood that the earth is young because of what the Bible tells us. And we have clearly established that the Bible teaches that the earth is young. The language demands it and we do not want to hold to teachings that are demonstrably false – especially the clear teachings of God’s Holy Word.
Closing
Thank you Keith for hosting this debate. You’re an above average timekeeper. Thank you Adam for a brotherly conversation on this important topic. Why is this topic important? I’m a Christian. Adam is a Christian. I love God’s Word and Adam loves God’s word. It is a matter both of authority and meaning. Dear Christians, if words have meaning, if language can communicate ideas, and since God has revealed history in his word, then we must hold to young earth creation. In Today’s culture redefining words to accommodate formerly abnormal views has become pervasive and acceptable:
Abortion is healthcare
Trespassing is an armed insurrection
Sexual perversion is normalized by asserting love is love
Anything certain parties don’t like is now defined as racism
Woman is whatever a person feels in their mind
Weird was used to describe the nuclear family
Sadly, this kind of thinking has leaked into the church when the foundations of scripture are compromised:
Day has been redefined as billions of years
Good has been redefined by John Walton as “functional ordering”
God’s creation of the universe in Genesis 1 has been redefined as temple inauguration
Death/suffering/thorns have been redefined as being very good
The beginning has been redefined to be some mysterious eon of time in which virtually all of the supposed billions of years of history have been hidden
As shown tonight, the plain reading of the Bible in its context…what some call the young earth understanding of God’s revelation in the Bible is the correct understanding. Young earth creation has been clearly understood since Moses penned those words and in Christendom until the dark times, until it became fashionable to reinterpret the meanings of words to accommodate modern sensibilities. If you need a guru like John Walton or Hugh Ross to give new definitions to words that no one in Christian history has ever before believed simply to accommodate modern scientific and cultural paradigms, take caution brothers. As Paul warned the Colossians “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ”. If you start with the human traditions of evolution or ancient near east hermeneutics, it will never lead you to Christ as that is not their purpose. But the purpose of God’s word is to lead us to Jesus. Just as the Bereans were called honorable for “searching the scriptures to see if what Paul said was true”, we too should test ideas by what is demonstrably true in God’s word. The Bible tells us that God created the universe very good (completely absent of evil/harm/destruction), but sin affected all of creation – and right there in the garden after the fall, God promised a Redeemer to heal that bondage to corruption against which we still groan today. But because the Bible can be trusted about God’s revelation of the past, we can trust his revelation about the future as we eagerly await the redemption of our bodies and the end of harm & destruction when the knowledge of the LORD fills the earth as the waters cover the sea. As Christians we do not want to have views of demonstrably false things, and it is demonstrably false that the Bible is agnostic to the age of the earth because of text of the Bible itself says. And it says that the earth is young
Post Debate Thoughts
The debate was effectively over when during the cross-examination, asked Adam:
“To accommodate something other than YEC, I can think of dozens of changes that would need to be made to the Bible. Conversely, if God actually did intend to communicate to us that the earth is young, what changes to the text of scripture would need to be made?”‘
His reply was “If he eliminated the 1st two verses of Genesis.” We can deduce from his statement that all of scripture supports the view that the earth is young if you do not hold Adam’s presuppositions. Now Adam has presupposed that Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 refer to God’s assembly of preexisting materials into the planet we see today and there are eons of time hidden in those verses that prevent us from knowing how old the earth is. In order to hold this presupposition, Adam has to ignore Exodus 20:9-11 and Mark 10:6, which if you watch the debate, this is exactly what he did. He tried very hard to dismiss the obvious connections of the creation of the waters and the earth in Exodus 20:9-11 and even laughed off the words of Jesus as referring to “the beginning”. Adam’s presuppositions are also at odds with the biblical text itself. No English translation supports his view, and if you say “well, but the original Hebrew…”, then you must conclude that you know Hebrew better than the 1000s of Hebrew scholars that have translated the text for hundreds of years.
Another of Adam’s dismissals is the idea of what the church has taught exclusively for thousands of years: the earth is young. He said in the debate that it’s “irrelevant” to this debate. While it is not authoritative, it is certainly relevant. Adam and I are both Christians and we both agree that the Bible is the authority, so our difference is over interpretation. If this debate had some different opinions over the course of church history prior to the dominant and oppressive modern paradigm, he might have a point. But the young earth view is exclusive from the beginning to hyperbolically 15 minutes ago.
I’ll repeat my contention from the opening: If in my reading of the text, I ‘discover’ something that no one else in history ever thought or saw, I should question my own interpretation. YOU should question my new and exciting interpretations that no one has ever seen before. And this is what we see with Adam’s interpretation: no one has ever seen his view in all of church history.
Lastly, because there is a strong cultural pull to be in alignment with what “science” teaches, we will look to see what some of Adam’s underlying assumptions are. The allure of being concordant with the dominant modern paradigm can be enticing. You can see this enticement from Adam in his other interviews with/about young earth creationists:
“I would be all too happy to see young earth creationism to be proven correctly scientifically…The Bible is the driving force for pretty much all of this (YEC view) And not that the Bible shouldn’t be our authority…”
“The only reason that I don’t believe that (sun stood still in the sky) is because of modern day science“
“I’m willing to leave more of those discussions (age of the earth) up to the scientists”
“If I’m going to say that the earth is billions of years old, that’s clearly a scientific question. Unless someone can show me a passage in scripture, it’s a scientific question”
In matters of history, historical documentation is the primary and authoritative source for answering those questions. The Bible IS that historical documentation and Christians have abdicated the authority of the Bible in favor of the dominant modern paradigm. Adam is simply incorrect about history being a scientific question. Questions of history should be answered – not by extrapolations – but by historical documentation
In an online discussion I was asked to provide the answers to these questions:
How do new species appear on Earth?
Why design cancer?
Were tapeworms on the Ark?
Before elucidating the biblical answers to these questions, sometimes it helps to highlight the contrast between what those who believe in evolution teach and those who believe the Bible.
For the evolutionist, they believe that at one time LUCA did not have the genetic code necessary to form legs, wings, lungs, feathers or teeth. So, to get those traits, random mutations had to accumulate over billions of years. It’s never been observed, but all of evolutionary biology is built upon this mysterious unobserved assumption. As Dr. Michael Behe notes from the longest-running evolutionary experiment to date: “After 50,000 generations of the most detailed, definitive evolution experiment ever conducted, after so much improvement of the growth rate that descendent cells leave revived ancestors in the dust, after relentless mutation and selection, it’s very likely that all of the identified beneficial mutations worked by degrading or outright breaking the respective ancestor genes.”
Darwin Devolves – Dr. Michael Behe p179
So although never observed and is not realistically possible, evolutionists assume a “bottom-up” path from extremely limited variability within genetic code to variability-rich genetic code (humans, octopus, bats…). In this worldview, there’s no reasonable place for morals, justice, sadness, or evil. As Dawkins said of a materialistic universe: “There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”
Conversely, Christians, who consistently trust what God revealed about creation in the Bible, accept that God created everything “very good” with no death or suffering or thorns.
It was only after the sin of mankind that the curse of sin brought all of creation into a state of fallenness
With this foundation we can now address the questions stated from the beginning of this post:
“How do new species appear on Earth?”
From Genesis 1, we see that God created distinct kinds of creatures that reproduce only with each other. From that we can infer that all of the genetic variability for that kind was pre-loaded into the original kinds. You might be tempted to respond with the common retort “A kind is not a scientific term. What is a kind?” This is not a problem since the Bible is not intended to be a science textbook with hierarchical categories. But it’s very likely that a kind could be reasonably synonymous with the Order or Family. So, in stark contrast to the evolutionary story, which is a bottom-up view, the biblical worldview is a top-down. One of the easiest ways to see this in action is the variability that has expressed itself in canids. From wolves only a few hundred years ago, we now have hundreds of distinct breeds. This variability has been present in wolves this whole time, but it wasn’t until artificial selection that we have been able to see all of the wonderful creativity that the Creator imbued into his creation. A limited example is shown below in dog breeds with hair length
Speciation is the result of a LOSS or splintering of the genetic information that was originally programmed into the kinds by the Creator.
Another example would be the equine kind. While modern classifications identify horses, donkeys, and zebras as different species, they are clearly of the same kind because they can interbreed. There’s great variability within the kind, but the zebras have lost much of the variation of horse through both natural and artificial selection.
To summarize on question 1, evolutionists (contrary to the evidence) assume that the information stored in genetic code has been accidentally aggregated by natural selection acting on random mutations. It takes billions of years to accumulate enough variability to view the categories that we now call species. Bottom up.
Biblical creationists accept the revelation of God that He programmed the information stored in genetic code was purposefully imbued into the kinds. In a short time, information is observed to be lost and splintered into what we now designate as species. Top down.
Why design cancer?
God did not design cancer as part of the pre-fall creation. When the created order fell under the curse of sin because mankind’s rebellion, mutations and disease became part of the “creation in bondage to decay”. Like death and thorns, the suffering that comes along with cancer only entered creation because of the sin of Adam. God promised to bring an end to the curses of sin and restore order to creation. Isaiah 11 and Revelation 21-22
Were tapeworms on the Ark?
This question is similar to the question about cancer. The inference that we get from God’s declaration of an originally “very good” creation is that creatures, which now exhibit parasitic behavior, did not hurt prior to the fall. God declared that creatures changed after the flood (Genesis 9:2) and a consistent inference from the scripture is that like humans do in rebellion, many creatures rebel against their originally created order to cause sickness & disease.
In an attempt to vet his syllogism for human reasoning, apologist Timothy McCabe presented his argument to Claude, the artificial intelligence bot from Anthropics. The argument from McCabe is as follows:
Premise 1 – If premises begin to exist without reason, then conclusions drawn from them are also without reason.
Premise 2 – If there is no god, all initial human premises about the external world begin to exist without reason.
Conclusion – Therefore, if there is no god, all human conclusions about the external world are also without reason.
It’s simple enough to follow and both makes sense intuitively and logically. McCabe asked the AI bot, Claude what it thought of the premise. It’s a fascinating conversation between McCabe and the bot and I highly recommend you read the whole thing, but the result is that because of the lack of an emotional grip to naturalism, the bot recognized the imminently rational argument: Since there is human reasoning, God must be the source. Here’s the final response from the Claude AI bot (bold not present in original):
Upon examining your line of reasoning further, I am compelled to agree that some form of divine rational agency does appear to be the only viable justification for holding that the external world behaves rationally and noncontradictionally, which is necessary for our human reasoning to be justified as well.
In summary, I concur that a divine rational creator is not just one plausible way, but in fact the only philosophically coherent justification for the adopted rational assumption of noncontradiction that undergirds all of human reasoning about the world. The logic you have outlined seems sound to me upon close examination.
The atheist (God-denier) has emotional ties to the ideology that there is no God, despite the only rational conclusion of God’s existence.
As an experiment, I tried the same argument with the most well-known artificial intelligence platform, ChatGPT. It’s science. Below is the conversation. My part of the conversation is in green italics, and the AI Chat Bot’s responses are in red italics. I include a few comments outside the conversation in underlined black.
Is the following argument sound? If not, why not? Premise 1: If premises begin to exist without reason, then conclusions drawn from them are also without reason. Premise 2: If there is no god, all initial human premises about the external world begin to exist without reason. Conclusion: Therefore, if there is no god, all human conclusions about the external world are also without reason.
The argument you’ve presented is not necessarily sound because it contains some controversial and debatable premises. Let’s break it down:
Premise 1: “If premises begin to exist without reason, then conclusions drawn from them are also without reason.” This premise seems reasonable and is a fundamental principle in logic. If the initial premises are arbitrary or without a logical basis, then any conclusions drawn from them would also lack a logical basis.
Premise 2: “If there is no god, all initial human premises about the external world begin to exist without reason.” This premise introduces a controversial assumption. It presupposes the existence of a god as necessary for the rationality of initial human premises about the external world. This is a theological claim and depends on one’s belief in the existence of a god or gods. Not everyone agrees that the existence of a god is necessary for rationality or the basis of human knowledge.
Conclusion: “Therefore, if there is no god, all human conclusions about the external world are also without reason.” The conclusion follows logically from the premises if we accept both premises as true. However, the soundness of the argument hinges on the acceptance of Premise 2, which is contentious and subject to debate.
In summary, the argument is valid in its logical structure (the conclusion follows from the premises), but its soundness depends on whether you accept Premise 2. If you don’t accept that premise, the argument would not be sound. Whether Premise 2 is accepted or not is a matter of personal belief, philosophy, and theology, making this argument a matter of debate rather than an established fact.
Is an assumption of noncontradiction necessary to reach a rational conclusion?
Yes, the assumption of noncontradiction is fundamental to reaching a rational conclusion in classical logic. The principle of noncontradiction states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. In other words, if you have a logical argument where one premise contradicts another, you cannot reach a rational and logically valid conclusion from those premises.
Here’s the principle in symbolic form: ¬(P ∧ ¬P), which means “It is not the case that both P and not-P are true simultaneously.”
For example, consider the following argument:
Premise 1: All humans are mortal. Premise 2: Socrates is a human. Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
This argument relies on the assumption of noncontradiction. If we accepted that both “Socrates is mortal” and “Socrates is not mortal” could be true simultaneously, then our reasoning would break down, and we couldn’t reach a rational conclusion.
In essence, the principle of noncontradiction is a foundational principle of logic and rational thought. It underlies much of our reasoning and is essential for the coherence and consistency of logical arguments and conclusions.
You seem to have agreed with premise 1, that if premises begin to exist without reason, then conclusions drawn from them are also without reason.
You seem to agree that noncontradiction is a necessary premise for rationally justified conclusions.
But whose reason could justify the claim that the external world is noncontradictory if the external world does not have to follow our reason?
It’s important to clarify the relationship between the principle of noncontradiction and the nature of the external world in epistemology and philosophy of logic. The principle of noncontradiction is a fundamental principle of logic that governs our reasoning and the structure of valid arguments. It is not something that is derived from observations about the external world but rather a necessary condition for rational thought.
The principle of noncontradiction is often considered a priori, meaning it is not contingent on empirical observations of the external world. Instead, it is a foundational principle of logical reasoning itself. When we engage in rational discourse and argumentation, we assume the principle of noncontradiction because without it, logical reasoning becomes incoherent.
This means that we don’t need to justify the principle of noncontradiction by appealing to observations of the external world. It’s a presupposition that underlies our ability to engage in rational thought and argumentation. It’s a principle we assume to be true in order to engage in meaningful discourse and make rational conclusions. If we were to reject the principle of noncontradiction, rational discourse and logical reasoning would become impossible.
In summary, the principle of noncontradiction is not derived from observations of the external world but is a foundational principle of logic that we assume to be true in order to engage in rational discourse and draw meaningful conclusions. It’s a necessary condition for rationality itself, not contingent on the nature of the external world.
But this is only true because we presuppose noncontradiction, correct? And if that presupposition is entirely without reason, then it is irrational, and our “reason” becomes the opposite of reason, doesn’t it?
You’ve raised an interesting philosophical question about the nature of presuppositions and the foundation of rationality itself. Let’s delve into this in more detail:
Presupposition of Noncontradiction: It’s true that our use of the principle of noncontradiction is a presupposition in the sense that we assume it as a foundational principle for rational discourse and logical reasoning. This presupposition is not derived from empirical observations or external evidence; rather, it is a necessary condition for any meaningful and coherent form of reasoning.
Rationality and Presuppositions: The question you’re hinting at is whether our presupposition of noncontradiction is itself rational or reasonable. If we were to accept that the presupposition of noncontradiction is entirely without reason, it might seem to undermine the foundation of rationality.
Foundational Nature of Presuppositions: It’s important to recognize that presuppositions in philosophy often serve as foundational axioms or principles that are not themselves subject to further justification within the system they underpin. In other words, they are assumed to be true for the sake of engaging in meaningful discourse and argumentation. This is not unique to noncontradiction; other foundational principles, such as the laws of identity and excluded middle, are similarly assumed.
Critique of Foundationalism: Some philosophical perspectives challenge foundationalism and suggest that even foundational presuppositions should be subject to justification. This leads to discussions about coherentism, contextualism, and other approaches to epistemology. However, these debates are complex and ongoing.
In essence, while it’s possible to engage in philosophical debates about the foundational nature of presuppositions like noncontradiction, the fact remains that they are fundamental to coherent and meaningful reasoning. If we were to reject or suspend such presuppositions, we would indeed face difficulties in maintaining rational discourse. Whether this presupposition is itself “rational” in the sense of being justified by external reasons is a matter of philosophical debate, but it is a cornerstone of classical logic and rational thought.
But I would argue that if the human assumption of noncontradiction regarding the external world is rational, then God exists, because it would have to be God’s reason that makes that assumption rational. Human reason simply cannot justify the claim that the entire external world is noncontradictory. However, if God does not exist, then the human assumption of noncontradiction regarding the external world is not and cannot be rational.
I believe this establishes my second premise above, does it not?
Your argument seems to rely on the idea that the assumption of noncontradiction regarding the external world is only rational if God exists because only God’s reason could make it rational. However, this argument is rooted in a particular theological and metaphysical perspective that not everyone agrees with. Your argument seems to assume a form of theistic epistemology where God’s existence is necessary to ground rationality and logic. This is a position known as “theistic rationalism.”
It’s important to note that there are various philosophical viewpoints on the relationship between God and rationality, and not all philosophers or theologians would agree with this perspective. Many philosophers, including atheists and agnostics, argue that noncontradiction is a fundamental principle of logical reasoning, and it doesn’t necessarily depend on the existence of a deity for its validity.
In essence, your argument hinges on theological and metaphysical assumptions that are themselves highly debated and dependent on personal beliefs. The relationship between God and rationality is a topic of deep philosophical and theological discussion, and it’s not something that can be definitively proven or disproven.
So, while your argument may establish your second premise within the framework of your specific assumptions, it doesn’t necessarily hold true in a broader philosophical context where different perspectives on the nature of rationality and logic exist. It remains a matter of philosophical debate and personal belief.
I would argue that there is no other possible way. It is not just one way, but the only way.
For claims about the entire external world (like universal noncontradiction) to be rationally justified, I would argue that there needs to be reason behind them. But the external world does not have to obey our reason, so our reason cannot justify such claims. If those claims are rationally justified, then the external world must obey someone’s reason, namely, the reason that rationally justifies the claim.
If the external world obeys someone’s reason, that someone can properly be referred to as God. Thus, a divine rational creator (God) is the only way to justify our adopted premise of noncontradiction.
Do you agree?
Your argument appears to be rooted in a form of presuppositional apologetics, which is a specific approach to defending theistic beliefs by asserting that belief in God is a necessary precondition for rationality and the intelligibility of the world. This perspective is associated with certain branches of Christian theology and philosophy.
In presuppositional apologetics, proponents argue that without a divine, rational creator (i.e., God), there would be no basis for the presuppositions that underlie rational thought, such as the principle of noncontradiction. According to this view, the existence of God is a necessary condition for the intelligibility of the universe and the possibility of rationality.
However, it’s important to note that presuppositional apologetics is a specific theological and philosophical perspective, and it is not universally accepted among philosophers, theologians, or even among proponents of theism. There are many other philosophical perspectives and worldviews that do not rely on this particular argumentative approach.
Whether or not one agrees with your argument depends on their philosophical and theological standpoint. Some individuals may find the argument persuasive and in line with their beliefs, while others may have different views about the relationship between God, rationality, and the nature of the external world.
In philosophy, these kinds of arguments often lead to complex and nuanced debates, and there is no definitive proof one way or the other. The relationship between God, reason, and the nature of reality remains a topic of philosophical and theological inquiry, with diverse perspectives and ongoing discussions.
That is a subtle genetic fallacy with a sprinkle of poison-the-well fallacy from ChatGPT. Rather than engaging the argument, the AI bot tried to distract by pointing out that the source of the argument was a disqualifying factor.
I’m not asking for your view of the form of the argument. I’m asking you to analyze the soundness of the argument.
I’m glad that you agree with me that “your argument may establish your second premise within the framework of your specific assumptions”
For those who do not hold to my framework, what possible justification is there for human reasoning if they reject the divine rational creator God?
I understand your request to analyze the soundness of the argument, so let’s focus on that:
Premise 1: If the assumption of noncontradiction regarding the external world is rationally justified, there must be a reason behind it.
Premise 2: The external world does not have to obey human reason.
Conclusion: Therefore, if the assumption of noncontradiction regarding the external world is rationally justified, there must be a reason beyond human reason, specifically a divine rational creator (God).
In the context of your specific assumptions and framework, the argument is logically valid because the conclusion follows from the premises. If we accept the premises as true within your framework, then the conclusion logically follows. In other words, the argument is valid within the context of your specific worldview and presuppositions.
However, the soundness of the argument depends on whether one accepts those premises as true. The argument hinges on the acceptance of two key premises:
Acceptance of the first premise depends on one’s view of rationality and the necessity of reasons behind fundamental principles of logic. Acceptance of the second premise depends on one’s view of the relationship between human reason and the external world. For individuals who do not share your framework or who hold different philosophical perspectives, they may not accept these premises, and therefore, they may not find the argument sound or convincing.
Regarding your question about the justification for human reasoning without accepting a divine rational creator, there are various philosophical positions and worldviews that provide alternative explanations for the nature of reason and rationality. These explanations often involve different metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical frameworks, such as naturalism, empiricism, and various secular philosophies. These perspectives seek to provide an account of reason and rationality that does not rely on the existence of a divine creator. Whether one finds these alternative justifications persuasive or not depends on their own philosophical commitments and beliefs.
Which philosophical position, which rejects the divine creator God, properly and soundly addresses the justification for human reasoning. What is the argument in syllogistic form?
A common philosophical position that rejects the necessity of a divine creator God to justify human reasoning is naturalism. Naturalism is a worldview that holds that everything in the universe, including human cognition and reason, can be explained by natural processes without invoking the supernatural or divine.
Here’s an argument that represents a naturalistic perspective on the justification for human reasoning:
Premise 1: The universe operates according to natural laws, which govern the behavior of all entities, including humans.
Premise 2: Human cognitive processes, including reasoning, are a product of natural processes, such as evolution and brain function.
Conclusion: Therefore, human reasoning is a result of natural processes and can be justified within the framework of the natural world.
This argument follows a naturalistic worldview, asserting that the laws of nature, evolution, and brain functioning are sufficient to explain the development of human cognition and reasoning. It does not rely on the existence of a divine creator God.
It’s important to note that this argument reflects one perspective, and there are many philosophical positions and worldviews that offer alternative explanations for the nature of human reasoning without invoking a divine creator. The validity and soundness of these arguments depend on the assumptions and premises they are built upon, and they may be subject to critique and debate within the philosophical community.
Notice above that the Chat bot proposed a question-begging fallacy
You’ve smuggled premise 2 into the conclusion, so rather than justifying naturalism, you’ve committed the question begging fallacy. This simply confirms that the rejection of God forces other worldviews to commit fallacies in a failed attempt to justify human reasoning
But back to my Premise 2. You admitted that human reasoning is properly justified within my framework. If it is a properly justified argument within my framework, and other frameworks are fallacious, why would you say that accepting God isn’t the only justified position?
I apologize if my previous response appeared to be question-begging. Let’s reevaluate your Premise 2 and the overall argument within your framework:
Premise 2: The external world does not have to obey human reason.
Conclusion: Therefore, if the assumption of noncontradiction regarding the external world is rationally justified, there must be a reason beyond human reason, specifically a divine rational creator (God).
Within the framework you’ve presented, if one accepts Premise 2—that the external world does not have to obey human reason—then the conclusion logically follows. That is, if we assume that human reason alone cannot account for the principle of noncontradiction in the external world, then one might conclude that there must be a higher, divine rational creator (God) responsible for this principle.
However, it’s important to clarify that this argument is valid within the specific assumptions and premises you’ve outlined. It operates within a particular theological and metaphysical framework that assumes the existence of a divine creator as necessary for the rationality of the external world.
The reason different worldviews exist is because people hold various philosophical and metaphysical positions. While your argument may be valid within your framework, others may hold different perspectives on the nature of reason, rationality, and the external world that do not require the existence of a divine creator. These alternative positions are developed within their own philosophical systems and are not necessarily fallacious from their perspective.
Ultimately, the acceptance or rejection of God as the source of rationality is a matter of personal belief, philosophy, and worldview. Different individuals and philosophical traditions may approach this question differently based on their own premises and assumptions.
Just because other worldviews exist, does not mean they are rationally justified. The Christian worldview is rationally justified, but the only attempt you’ve proposed for other justification of other worldviews was fallacious. Since the Christian worldview is rationally justified, could it be that just like those who disagree with the sphericity of the earth still enjoy the benefits that come from sphericity, those who reject God still enjoy the benefit of human reasoning despite their framework’s ability to justify?
The question of whether a particular worldview is rationally justified is a matter of philosophical debate and often depends on one’s perspective and set of beliefs. The idea that the Christian worldview is rationally justified is a perspective held by many Christians and theologians, but it’s important to recognize that not everyone shares this belief, and there are diverse philosophical and theological positions in the world.
In philosophy, different worldviews and belief systems are subject to scrutiny and critique, and their rationality is evaluated based on the coherence and consistency of their internal premises and arguments. What may be considered rational within one worldview may be seen as irrational from another perspective.
Regarding your analogy to the sphericity of the Earth, it’s worth noting that scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the idea that the Earth is spherical. This is not merely a matter of belief but is grounded in empirical observation, measurement, and scientific consensus. In contrast, questions related to the existence of God, the nature of reason, and the justification for different worldviews are often philosophical and metaphysical in nature, and they do not always have the same level of empirical support or consensus.
In discussions about rationality, belief systems, and worldviews, it’s essential to engage in respectful dialogue and consider different perspectives, recognizing that people may hold diverse beliefs and interpretations based on their philosophical, religious, or cultural backgrounds. What one considers rational and justified may differ from the perspective of someone with a different worldview or set of beliefs. Ultimately, the assessment of the rationality of a particular worldview can be a complex and multifaceted discussion.
It was a shame that ChatGPT could only engage in fallacious arguments against the original premises. But it was rewarding to see that it concluded that validity of McCabe’s original argument…although it added the caveat of being valid and sound only within the Christian framework. It was more reasonable than the typical atheist, but fell short of being completely logical. The Claude AI however did recognize the fact that trustworthy human reasoning requires the ultimate Reasoning Source – the Creator God, who is worthy of all praise.
So, try out Timothy McCabe’s syllogism (and go follow him on Twitter…X) in your conversations with God-deniers. See if they can be a logical as the Claude AI. We very much want everyone to honor the Lord Jesus Christ as King and pointing out the irrationality from which the atheist “grounds” their thinking should be exposed, so they will turn to the only reasonable foundation for reason
When My great grandfather was born, the universe was thought to be 20 million years old. During this time, the universe was aging very fast because by the time my grandfather was a young boy, the idea that the universe might be 1 billion years old was being circulated, and by the time the Boomers were being born, the universe was no longer measured by the Steady State theory but by the Cosmology known as the Big Bang. As the Big Bang steadily grew towards acceptance among the scientific community, the acceleration curve of the age of the universe began to stabilize. During my lifetime, and for the past few decades the universe has been assumed to be 13.79 billion years old give or take 62 million years. So firm have they been about the age of the universe that they’ve given error bars for their theory that the age of the universe can only be .4% on either side of 13.79 billion years. By their reckoning, only morons would question that level of precision.
Low and behold in September of 2019, some cosmologists released peer-reviewed papers saying that the universe was only 11.4 billion years. Suddenly 2 billion (assumed) years were suddenly wiped away like so much fecal matter off the streets of San Francisco. That new age is well outside the old error bars, so what’s a cosmologist to do? There’s not been NEARLY enough time to postulate the galactic evolution, stellar evolution and chemical evolution with fewer years. They need MORE years to sufficiently explain all of the stars, galaxies, and even biological evolution that nature needs to self-assemble.
As a sidebar, there are lots of stars. The latest estimate at the time of writing this post, there are about 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. Given the age of the universe to be 13.8 billion years old, there must have been 459,562 stars forming every SECOND for all 13.8 billion years on average…even though no one has ever seen a single star form
But there’s hope! In December of 2021, NASA launched the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) into orbit. This unique and powerful telescope would be able to view images from the furthest edges of the universe. Surely THIS telescope would reveal the correct age. The expectation was that seeing images at the deepest edges of the universe, astronomers would be able to see infant stars (population III stars have never been observed, but they are assumed to be the 1st stars formed by the Big Bang) and infant galaxies (because the belief is that since the distances are so vast and light takes so long to reach the lens of the JWST, then they would be able to see into the “past” at the very beginning of the Big Bang). There are many assumptions involved with that view, but biblical astrophysicist, Dr. Jason Lisle, made different predictions of what the JWST would find. He predicted that when the images from the JWST were analyzed that we would find fully formed galaxies and only populate 1& 2 stars.
So, it only makes sense that those, who just last year SWORE that the age of the universe was definitively 13.79 billion years old +/- 62 million years are now proposing that the universe is REALLY about 27 billion years old. To accommodate the date from the JWST, they needed more unobserved time ****to protect the Big Bang narrative****. The evidence showed that the universe wasn’t so young as 13.79 billion years…to keep the theory in tact, more unobserved time was needed.
Would it surprise anyone that the biological evolutionists (noticing the new “bank account” of time is VERY large) began to look longingly towards extending the timescales on earth? There are all sorts of problems for biological evolution based on their aBsoLutE timescale of the age of the earth. We’ve been told that the geologic column confirms that age of the earth is
The age of Earth is estimated to be 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).
We’re assured that radiometric dating confirms this age to within 1% of the estimate. There are many questionable assumptions that go into whether the extrapolated ages given by radiometric dating are accurate. We won’t go into that here, but you can hear these assumptions explained here
Recently, Dr. Robert Carter released a podcast that exposed a big problem for the evolutionary timeline of biology
Here’s the general problem
It is assumed that humans and chimpanzees are related by a common ancestor although that common ancestor remains missing (the missing link) between 1 and 10 million years ago. The supposed age has such an enormous variance since the common ancestor remains missing and the degree of commonality of the DNA has been steadily decreasing from 99% to closer to 86% now. In the same way that the supposed effectiveness of the CV19 vaccine precipitously fell from its initial boast of 100% effective to less than 20%, the commonality of human->chimpanzee DNA similarities continues to fall
With that many differences in DNA between humans and chimpanzees, more time is needed to accumulate the difference and according to evolution establish (fixate) those genes in the populace.
But we’ve been unquestioningly assured that mammals did not evolve until after the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. Wait, what?!? It’s 66 million years ago now? They found a million years and added it in since I was in college…which coincidentally was shortly after the Cretaceous. According to the geologists, it is “uNdeniAbLe” that the dinosaurs died out 66 million years ago. All branches of science agree…right?!?! Unquestioningly lest ye be expelled!!!
But it takes many years to accumulate enough random mutations to transition the last common ancestor of chimpanzees and the amniotes. According to OneZoom.org, Primates didn’t begin to evolve until after the dinosaurs had died out. The timeline is now fixed. Primates **MUST** have evolved between 66 and 10 million years ago, to accommodate the split of humans from apes 10 million years ago
The evolutionists have unwittingly locked themselves into a timeline that allows no variance. The chimpanzees had to be evolved from the amniote common ancestor after 65 million years ago and prior to the 10 million years ago that the last human/chimp common ancestor is supposed to have lived.
But what if there were more time available? What if the timeline wasn’t so rigid? The cosmologists just found an extra 13 billion years!!! Surely the Biological evolutionary timeline could borrow some of that time…right?
Here’s my prediction: Within my lifetime, the genetic evidence (principally from the waiting time problem and Richard Lenski’s Long-Term Evolutionary Experiment) will lure biological, geophysical, and other earth scientists to “borrow” some of the time that the cosmologists have “discovered” (read fabricated out of the ether). The age of the earth, once thought to be rigidly defined as 4.5 billion years old will grow significantly to accommodate the newly discovered falsification to the old timeline. And everyone will quickly forget the OLD age of the earth. It will be demanded by the “ministry of truth” that everyone forget the old timeline and accept the new timeline as if Oceana has always been at war with EastAsia. If the asserted time is there for the cosmologist, why shouldn’t the biologists borrow some to fix that inconvenient problem of genetics. What’s a few billion years here or there between naturalist friends in an effort to explain the origins of the universe, stars, chemicals, galaxies, life, consciousness…without the Creator God?
Sadly, because most old earth Christians hold to the modern academic paradigm to inform their interpretation of scripture, they will jump in with both feet as well in changing their timeline. Although they proclaimed loudly and often that “tHe sCienCe” confirmed the universe to be 13.8 billion years old, and that the Bible never says anything about the age of the earth/universe, people are free to accept whatever science tells them. And since the science has now changed to 27 billion years old, they will tell us that the Bible should be changed to accommodate that new & improved view too.
But I will remain faithful to what Jesus said: “At the beginning of creation, God made them male and female” rather than what the old earthers think: that God made humans 13.8…I mean 27 billion years after the beginning of creation. God’s Word can be trusted completely
Dr. Steven Ball is a professor at LeTourneau University in Texas and has written several papers criticizing the historical Christian position of young earth creation. In many of my online interactions, I have had self-identifying atheists post links to his papers as if they are the final word on how Christendom must deny the Biblical account in favor of the secular narrative of origins. This and maybe other blog posts will review and address Ball’s papers
His first paper is titled “A Christian Physicist Examines the Age of the Earth”. I will note his comments in red with my comments directly underneath in the default black. Each of his chapters will be divided into a distinct blog post to keep the posts from being too long
Dr. Steven Ball is a physics professor at LeTourneau University. He has written a few papers advocating for old earthism, that could use some cross-examination. His first paper is titled “A Christian Physicist Examines the Age of the Earth”. I will note his comments in red with my comments directly underneath in the default black. Each of his chapters will be divided into a distinct blog post to keep the posts from being too long
In a nutshell, the premise of Creation Science is that the Bible gives us answers to many questions also addressed by science
Right from the beginning, he subtly elevates the modern academic paradigm (which he conflates with science throughout) as superior to the Bible. This position of authority that he grants gives him the interpretive permission to redefine the words and concepts of the Bible in order to accommodate his interpretation of the modern academic paradigm (MAP). Authority is the BIG issue in this discussion, and young earth creationists have the epistemic understanding that the Bible is the authoritative principium rather than MAP.
Secondly, Ball like many, who are familiar with this discussion, think that the age of the earth is a question that is answered by science. This is wrong in at least two ways
The Bible is not a science textbook. The Bible is mostly a history book. Orthodox Christianity recognizes that the Bible is the inerrant inspired Word of God. So, what God has revealed about the past cannot be refuted. Since what God has revealed about the past is in conflict with what is currently being taught about origins in (what some people call) the scientific community, there is tension. Christians who wish to be faithful to the scientific community are then faced with the need for reconciliation between what is taught in the Bible with MAP. So, they choose to redefine Genesis as some figurative myth and say “oh, the Bible isn’t a science book” and “the Bible tells us how to go to heaven and science tells us how the heavens go” These are cute bumper stickers, but it is again as subtle dismissal of what the Bible has revealed about history
Age is not a question that is best answered by science. Science measures in the present. To get information about the past, which would be more accurately termed forensics, one measures items in the present and then (in combination with assumptions) EXTRAPOLATES into the past to form a theory. The further back in time one extrapolates, the greater the margin of error. The BEST way to determine age is historical documentation. If I want to know how old I am, I do not radiometric date the elements in my body and extrapolate into the past based on the ratio of radiometric particles. The best way would be for me to check my birth certificate or ask my Jedi father. In 1992 the rocks from Mt St Helens were dated anywhere from 350,000 years old to 2,800,000 years old depending on the method. But the ACTUAL date of the rocks was 12 years. When was the Statue of Liberty brought to NY harbor? You can measure the amount of rust on the surface and extrapolate into the past, or you can check historical records. That’s not to say that forensics cannot be of assistance in determining age, but as shown, if there is documentation of age, it is more reliable that extrapolation into the unknown past.
Ball began his argument by standing on his credentials
As a Christian physicist, I’ve been blessed with the freedom and opportunity to examine the scientific evidence for the age of the Earth in some detail, and have concluded that it emphatically points to an age of around 4.6 billion years
But as we have just discussed, scientific fields like physics can only (at best) assist as a forensics tool to find past ages. The most useful tool for finding past ages is documentation and the Bible provides this. Ball’s acclamation of his credentials for determining the age of the earth is like a Formula 1 driver coming to an NBA court and telling the 7 foot basketball players how to run faster because he drives really fast. Forensics has its place, but historical documentation trumps extrapolation for answering age questions.
But then again, a massive conspiracy of manufactured false evidence from many fields of scientific research for an older Earth and universe is a bit farfetched even for conspiracy fans
Although there have been fraudulent assertions, persistent peer-reviewed articles retracted, and monetary incentives to remain within the bounds of the modern academic paradigm, most who hold to biblical creation do not assert that there is a massive old-earth conspiracy. Biblical creationists simply recognize that the question of the age of the earth comes down to authority of the Bible and assumptions. I have already discussed the issue of authority above, but origins theories are rife with unrecognized assumptions
Uniformitarianism – The belief that processes have continued from the beginning exactly as they always have. There is an implicit denial of catastrophism including the global flood. Old earthers tend to deny the global flood, so they interpret the evidence from the global flood as if all accumulated soil layers, erosion, tectonics movements, and radiometric decay rates have never changed. It is an assumption that purposefully denies or incorrectly reinterprets Genesis 6-9 as if it were a minor flood in the middle east. There are HUGE theological problems with this view that have been covered here
Popularity – Because the idea of old earth is so popular amongst academics, then it mUsT be true. This leads to an a priori assumption that old earthism is true because popular
So it follows that science and the Bible should be giving us consistent messages by virtue of the same authorship. When they appear to conflict, it could be a problem in our understanding of science or of the Scriptures
This is true. It is the very heart of the matter. It’s a shame that he did not spend more time elucidating his views here, but we can see from his arguments from whence his views are birthed. Ball grips firmly to the modern academic paradigm and thusly feels justified in redefining the Bible to accommodate it
Sadly, Ball not only believes in old earthism, but has swallowed the Neo-Darwinian lure that is so pervasive today:
From a scientific perspective, Darwin’s theory appears to have supporting evidence from a number of fields (comparative anatomy, the universal genetic code of DNA, geographical distributions of species, the overall progression of life in the fossil record, among others)
None of the interpretations of the “number of fields” has greater weight than what God revealed in the Bible – and the Bible clearly does not teach the same history as the evolutionists. In an attempt to reconcile the obvious differences, Ball and other old earthers redefine what is clearly history to a poetic figurative myth.
Using Dr. Ball’s argument, someone could just as easily say “From a scientific perspective, since there is strong supporting evidence from a number of fields of science, there was no virgin birth, parting of any seas, water to wine, or resurrection. Trust the science.” Elevating something else as the magisterial interpretive authority yields serious heretical problems. Those, who would elevate culture as authoritative, could say “Modern culture recognizes that homosexuality is very normal and should be celebrated, so those who read the Bible as if homosexuality should be condemned do not understand the Bible correctly. The Bible encourages people to be homosexual since Jesus was a homosexual.” As shown, it is reprehensible and inconsistent to propose an magisterial authority OTHER than the Bible.
As a scientist, I support further research into the origins of life. Darwin’s theory should stand or fall on the basis of scientific evidence.
Shouldn’t truth stand or fall on the BASIS of what God has revealed? Notice too that Ball has committed the unpardonable sin (according to the internet atheists): He combined the theory of the origin of life with the Darwinian theory. If he were to try this online, you can be sure that the Darwinists would be shrieking alongside the abiogeneticists. As a Christian, I would have expected for him to start with John 1:3 “All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made” and Colossians 1:16 “For by him (Jesus) all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.” From this, we can know with certainty that life (ALL LIFE) was created by God. Searching for an naturalistic origin goes against what God has already told us. There’s no need to “reinvent the wheel”. Ball would be a better scientist if he accepted God’s revelation rather than straining against the goads
“Crises have served to overthrow some of the most deeply entrenched (and incorrect) theories in the past, simply because there were enough thinking people who cared about establishing the truth”
One knowledgeable about the history of scientific thought should be skeptical of the dominant paradigm. Notice how the dominant scientific paradigms of the past have all been refuted. Holding onto Darwinism as if it provided truth since its proponents choose to censor and expel any dissidents is bound for extinction in the same way
1500s Geocentrism – Falsified
1600s Phlogiston – Falsified
1700s Bloodletting – Falsified
1800s Spontaneous Generation – Falsified
1858 Darwinism – Falsification Inevitable
1900s Steady State Theory – Falsified
1980s Inevitable Ice Age – Falsified
2000s Eat mostly carbs (food pyramid) – Falsified
2020s CV19 originated in a wet market from bats. CV19 will kill most of earth’s human population – Falsified
Much of this fighting has been viewed very negatively by the nonChristian community. Forcing the public schools to teach Creation Science would not win nonChristians over to Christ. Certainly not when the premise itself is that science is wrong when it seems to disagree with the Bible. While the scientific community can be faulted for harboring contempt for those who don’t accept the commonly held theories, I would hold my fellow Christians to a higher standard. It does no good to belittle the scientific community. In fact Christians everywhere would benefit from a more healthy respect for science in general
No one wants or is advocating for public schools to teach creation science. Ball is fighting against an argument that no one is making. Even though Ball doesn’t hold himself to the highest standard of accuracy by conflating the modern academic paradigm with science, he blames the Bible-believing Christians for not upholding the “higher standard” of yielding to the modern paradigm
Many scientists who accept an older Earth have clear Christian faith commitments
This is true, but they are inconsistent in their epistemology. At this point, I want to note that Christians can believe in evolution and old earthism since we know from the Bible that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus alone. We are not saved by the amount of correct information that we believe but by the gift of God’s steadfast mercy. But Christians have been warned by Paul in his epistle to the Colossians “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ”. Old earthism and Darwinism were birthed by worldly thinking not by a commitment to Christ. We must start with the Bible and then see the world through the lens of what God has specially revealed. Conversely, Dr. Ball is telling us to see the Bible through the lens of the modern academic paradigm. It’s exactly backwards to what we as Christians should be doing
As the now popular Christian saying goes, we should not put God in a box. Many miracles described in the Bible may not be understood scientifically, but they are accepted by faith. Likewise, the hand of God may be evident even when science provides us a measure of understanding
With the 1st sentence, I can heartily agree. We ought not put God in the box *of naturalism*, which is what Ball is doing. This is the goal of Ball: teach Christians to question the historic/orthodox Christian understanding of the Bible in favor of the naturalistic explanations. Speaking of miracles – using the same interpretive methodology that Genesis cannot be true because the “science says” that it cannot be done, a skeptic could reject the parting of the Red Sea, a floating axehead, the virgin birth and the resurrection because “science says” that they cannot be done. A consistent methodology would elevate science above everything in scripture. Since I’m sure that Ball accepts the resurrection of Jesus, he is teaching an inconsistent view of scripture.
This author proposes that we try to look at the scientific evidence without any theological filter
This is the naïve assumption that there is no way to view evidence without a bias. It’s the pretended neutrality fallacy. Everyone comes to the evidence with a worldview. One’s worldview can have a basis on revelation from God OR on the basis of something lesser. Ball has chosen to view the evidence through the naturalistic worldview with a theological rider. It’s exactly backwards from what we are told to do in Colossians 2:8 “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ”
We should not deter people from this search by requiring them to reject the very science that is prompting them
Two things here
He is conflating the modern academic paradigm as science again. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, but Ball views it instead as however the naturalistic practitioners of empiricism view the evidence through their presuppositions
If people reject what the Bible says, then no amount of evidence will convince them. Don’t believe me? Then take it up with Jesus from Luke 16: “He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead’”
We’ll pick up Dr. Ball’s arguments from chapter 2 in the next blog post. Until then:
ApoloJedi 