Jun 202006

Denyse O’Leary just posted on some YEC’s criticism of ID. Well, having had first hand experience with the strident attack from young earth creationists, I can say their criticism toward ID is mild by comparison. I wonder if the strident attack that YEC have toward other Biblical Creationists is not due to an inferiority complex. They have established themselves as the Pope of Biblical Orthodoxy. They will readily acknowledge that many OEC like myself is Biblically sound in many (if not all) other doctrines except the day/age interpretation. For that we are Bible compromisers and adhere to heresy. Although not calling OEC heretics but just promoting heresies, is a distinction without a difference. AiG claims that this is just an inconsistent interpretation of Genesis. Now who is being inconsistent? Doesn’t AiG know (or purposely ignore) that this strident rhetoric will produce a group of young earth followers that makes ‘big bang’‚ adherence the test of orthodoxy? I know. I’ve been questioned about my salvation due to my acceptance of the big bang theory.

The problem with the YEC charge that OEC are Bible compromisers is arrogant to say the least. They would acknowledge many OEC like John Ankerberg, J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, Gleason Archer, and Walter Kaiser is faithful defenders of the Bible other than their inconsistent interpretation of the word YOM in Genesis. YEC can legitimately disagree with these scholars without resorting to name calling. Considering preeminent scholars like Walter Kaiser and Gleason Archer, both knowing eight to ten Old Testament languages.

The creation of the universe is dated in Genesis 1:1 as being “in the beginning.”‚ Of that we can be as certain as we are of revelation itself. The creation of Adam came six “days”‚ later, but one must be warned that right there in the first chapters of Genesis the Bible uses the word day with three different meanings: (1) daylight (Gen 1:5), (2) a twenty-four-hour day (Gen 1:14) and (3) an epoch or era, as we use the word in speaking of the “day”‚ of the horse and buggy or Abraham Lincoln’s “day”‚ (Gen 2:4; compare the RSV’s “In the day”‚ with the NIV’s “When”‚ ). I would opt for the day-age theory, given all that must take place on the sixth “day”‚ according to the Genesis record. Incidentally, this day-age view has been the majority view of the church since the fourth century, mainly through the influence of Saint Augustine. — Kaiser, W. C. (1997, c1996). Hard sayings of the Bible (Page 103)

You can disagree with it and you can criticize it but to refer to people like this as Bible compromisers?

The charge of heresy on “death before the fall”‚ YEC dogma. For the sake of brevity I will refer the reader to these 2 other links, Creature Mortality: From Creation Or The Fall? and Been Thinking about Genesis
I’ve also written a rebuttal to the YEC elsewhere. For the sake of brevity here is a list of the implication and problem with the YEC position without elaboration.
1. Animals are immortal before Adam and Eve sin. (No literal Bible support)
2. Adam and Eve were immortal before they sin. (No literal Bible support)
3. The word yom = 24hr day. (No literal Bible support. The words 24 hours is not found any where in Genesis)
4. Adherence to 24hr time period yom is essential to the believing in the Gospel. (No literal Bible support and a perversion of the Gospel)
5. Death equals suffering before Adam sinned. (No literal Bible support)

Ken Ham:

“Those of us who believe in a literal Genesis have a history, a history concerning the Fall, a history concerning the Flood. So when we look at this world, we’re looking at a fallen world. It’s not God’s fault there are tsunamis. Death is not God’s fault.” However, by only discussing an unnamed designer, Ham says, flaws in creation must be attributed to that designer.

I am frankly tired of this self aggrandizement that YEC are the sole keeper of the “literal”‚ Biblical interpreter. I consider myself a literalist. Being a literalist does not mean that I can force my own modern understanding into the meaning of the Biblical text. Literal does not mean that I can ignore the linguistic and cultural and historical meaning of the text. We still need to follow a grammatical-historical method of interpretation.

Ham argues,

“I don’t think the ID movement would be where it is even now if it was not for the general creation movement,” says Ken Ham, president of AiG. “They’re riding on the coattails of the creation movement.”

This again comes across as arrogance to me. I would admit YEC does deserve some credit for the work that they have done. On the other hand it is obvious because of YEC theology they have poison the well for the ID debate. Many Americans do not agree with Darwinian evolution but they are concern about teaching Creationism as science also. This gives the Darwinists an easy target. Slap a creationist label on ID and totally avoid the debate. Maybe ID would be much further along if it was not tied up with the YEC coattail.

Rob Moll writes,

At the same time, creationists were warning their millions of followers about the dangers of ID. Its foundation in science, not the Bible

So what? ID is not out to prove the Bible or God. There are other avenues to do that. The Bible is not a science cookbook. This is precisely the problem with the YEC theology for all these years. When you try to force meanings into the Bible to interpret science you are misusing the Bible. You can’t start counting the number of names in the Bible, who beget whom and assign some lifespan to them to derive the age of the earth. You will run into all sorts of problem when you force these kinds of interpretations into the Bible and do the Word of God a disservice. The Bible is a special revelation from God and nature is the general revelation, just as there is general grace to the unrepentant humanity and special grace to the redeemed.


Being compatible with virtually all worldviews, ID gives very little insight into God, thus gives very little (to no) glory to Him, and is thus of very little use to me. (p.208)

Well, eating 3 meals a day gives very little insight into God so does that mean that eating is of very little use to Wise? Recreation and spending time with his family give very little insight into God, so does Wise have any use for that? I mean seriously, ID is not about proving God. ID is not a theological exercise. It is a scientific alternative to NDE that is compatible with Christianity. That’s all. Theology, salvation by grace through faith is still not by the works (science, young earth creationist kind or otherwise) but a gift from God.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.