Former 'Young Earth Creationist' - Now Confused 'Old Earth Creationist'...

[Jorge]

I couldn't agree with you more. That's why I don't fault you for your position, because I too believe that if you end up making a choice to 'trust' modern science, you end up having to practically DISTRUST the Bible. I believe it really is like you have to choose to place one above the other - to fully accept either.

This is why I stayed with the YEC view for so many years, as you have.

It's far more serious, demanding and with deeper consequences than what you express above. Scripture begins with a historical foundation "in the beginning" that creates an unbroken sequence start-to-present-to-future. Destroy that foundation and as a Christian I'd be the first to question the rest of Scripture.

There's a great deal to this subject but the bottom line is what I've already expressed to you : there's no way that I've ever encountered to reconcile billions of years with all of Scripture unless one is willing to modify Scripture in many areas - some more notable than others. I'm not willing to do that.

Like I said, the stars did me in. Even Geisler takes the OEC position because of the stars (being billions of light years away - and apparently taking billions of years for their light to reach us).

I can certainly understand your position - don't think I don't. The light travel time does present a challenge to YEC but I don't think it's an unsurmountable one. Humphrey's, for instance, has presented his WHC model as an alternative. While WHC does not answer every question, it does answer some.

One thing I know for certain is that the reigning Naturalistic cosmological models (all based on a Big Bang) have many questions and problems. It never ceases to amaze me how people, Christians even, have no difficulty in accepting those models along with their many questions and problems but those same people cannot accept any part of the questions/problems that, for example, WHC has.

Why do you think that is, mpb1?

I am still searching for a coherent way to RECONCILE Genesis with science, while still reading Genesis literally (which I agree with you, is REQUIRED by the text - I keep pointing to Genesis 5, for starters).

I personally know of NO conflict between science and Genesis. I know of many conflicts between Genesis and what people REGARD as science, but that's a totally different matter, agreed?

Another TWebber recommended this article, which I finally read last night:

"In Search of the Historical Adam"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PS....html#Part%201

It covers some interesting ground, though it doesn't really answer the ultimate question. The author discounts the GAP heory, which if I understand correctly, is also discounted by DNA analysis showing shared ancestry (between man, apes, and chimps).

My take : Gap Theory and Day Age Theory are artificial fabrications created to reconcile billions of years with Genesis. Note, however, that to propose such theories one must FIRST believe in those billions of years (obviously since if one doesn't then the reconciliation isn't necessary).

I always say to Christians : okay, let's go ahead and assume the billions of years. Now let's see what happens to Scripture. IMHO, that's the heart of the matter and where the answer to all this resides.

This thread was one of several 'searching threads' I've started since finding TWeb a few months ago. It left me with more questions than answers, just as the other ones did.

So I started another thread :)

"What Happens When You Take the Blinders Off? "
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ad.php?t=85758

to dig even deeper...

-

As you seem to be genuinely and openly interested in finding answers, please feel free to PM me if you have other questions. I don't have all the answers but whatever I have I'll gladly share.

EDITED TO ADD : I just took a quick look at your "blinders" thread. I couldn't disagree any stronger.

Jorge

[rmwilliamsjr]

i read a good book on the topic of moving from a YECists to OEC position:

book review: Paradigms on Pilgrimage
Paradigms on Pilgrimage: Creationism, Paleontology, and Biblical Interpretation
Godfrey, Stephen and Smith, Christopher

http://www.amazon.com/Paradigms-Pilg...e=UTF8&s=books

This is a part of my continuing interest in the Creation-Evolution-Design (CED) debate. It is however a bit off my usual reading schedule, it is in the genre of personal stories, of transition from young earth creationism (YEC) to something else. I don't usually read personal stories or books with substantial personal involvement, i prefer to spend my time on science and ideas rather than with people's personal struggles. This was an online recommendation that i took seriously and am frankly glad i did. It is not a spectacularly argued book, careful but not with great flashes of insight, more understated and calmly through the years type of analysis. It has as a goal not to discourage people from reading the whole thing, not to push hot buttons and have people just put the book down in disgust and move on. It has a goal of personal involvement and sympathetic identification with the authors as they tell you their journeys in the field, and as such it is very well done. Don't read this for big ideas in the CED debate, for great pieces of refutation you can take to the online boards, it isn't that type of a book. What it is, is a gentle, kindly story of two rather smart and sensitive men studying how their youthful background ought to interact with their adult callings and their studies of both God's World and God's Word over time and with increasing maturity and sensitivity to nuance.

I'd recommend this to every YEC, to anyone who struggles with the issues in CED, to anyone who reads Genesis and asks real hard questions. It is designed for this audience, it is very sympathetic to their concerns and sensitivities, and ought not to upset even the most hard boiled YECist. I'd just read it front to back, in order, not because the chapters are in a logical and necessary order requiring this, but because the author's have given some real thought to how important ideas interact and structure the book to be such a journey. It really is best just read as a novel, then go back and highlight and read for detail. Just breeze through the first time for the passion and the pain the authors wish to transfer to the reader as their story of their studies.

from my review at: http://rmwilliamsjr.livejournal.com/197391.html#cutid1
the rest of the review is an outline using pullquotes from the book

[mpb1]

Hi RMW, That looks like an interesting book. If the price goes down a little, I might order it used :) Thanks for the referral!

[mpb1]

Regarding the (long) GRMorton post above (post #59), which I copied from another thread, here's a response that was posted by Charlene on that other thread.

---------------------------------

I think the simplest explanation is that we are talking about Mesopotamian civilization. It fits easiest with the text, it fits easily with what we know about ancient Mesopotamia.

And I don't think that gardening and keeping livestock would have been lost to Noah and his descendents. As I said, it is a way of life and Noah would not have forgotten, good grief, he brought the whole herd with him. In Noah's position off the ark, it would have been easier for him to keep up animal husbandry than to revert back to huter/gatherer. It is what he knew, it is a way of life God helped to preserve when He told him to bring the animals on the ark with him, it was a livelihood. He had this knowledge for three hundred and fifty years after the flood, farming away, planting vineyards, making wine, getting drunk. And with his eight sons having this knowledge as well, and spreading it to their children, and without the problem of being isolated, I don't see it really reasonable that this way of life was lost. Indeed, it has not been lost since.

No, I think the whole ark thing was to preserve the way of life for Noah and his descendents rather than just having the animlas as company on board the ark. What, did the domesticated livestock revert back to wild only to be redomesticated ten thousand years ago? Could the sheep and goat ancestors even be domesticated five million years ago? So, did the "clean and unclean" of Noah's understanding have any resemblence to the "clean and unclean" of the Bible?

I think the simplest explanation for early Genesis is that we indeed are talking about ancient Mesopotamia, with the dawn of civilization.

Indeed, it would have been the right time for God to reveal Himself to man then, as language was common and with trade, new ideas could disperse. I think this may be the beginning of God's people, the line of Adam. Through Adam's line we have the knowledge of God. And it was not until Seth, Adam's son, that "men" began to "call upon the name of the Lord." Sounds like the Adamic line evangelized in a time where this knowledge could indeed spread to men through the way and means of ancient Mesopotamia. As Christ was born at the right time in history, in the backdrop of the Roman Empire, complete with Roman roads, etc, so Adam was born in the right time to bring the knowledge of God to civilization.

As was pointed out to me by another here, it was not Adam who first sinned, but Eve. And yet scripture says that through Adam's sin that sin entered the world. I say this shows federal headship. It was not literally Adam's but Eve's sin that entered first through mankind. There is something more here, Adam was the head of Eve. And not only Eve, but all of mankind as well.

Adam is the first to whom God reveals Himself. With Adam in his setting in Mesopotamia with the dawn of civilization, the knowledge of a monotheistic God could spread. I see it may be about timing in man's history, rather than the very beginning of it in Africa.

---------------------------------

The post above was written by Charlene, and copied from another thread. It is a response to GRMorton's post (which was copied into this thread as post #59, above.)

[mpb1]

I always say to Christians : okay, let's go ahead and assume the billions of years. Now let's see what happens to Scripture. IMHO, that's the heart of the matter and where the answer to all this resides.

I just took a quick look at your "blinders" thread. I couldn't disagree any stronger.

Jorge

Hi Jorge,

You are right, if we assume the earth is billions of years old, I agree that we have a serious problem, at least if we take Genesis at face vale. Which is one of the reasons there are so many atheists, and why people like you (and me - until recently) will fight tooth and nail to keep the earth young.

As far as my thread you mentioned about 'Taking the Blinders Off,' these issues have become an obessesion for me - because I HAVE to find a way to reasonbly resolve them. In the last couple weeks, I have questioned the veractity of Scripture and Christianity more than ever in my entire life...

Though now that I have basically narrowed it down in my own mind to one of two choices - either Theistic Evolution or Day-Age Creation, my cognitive dissonance has been reduced to a managable level. For a few days, I actually wondered if I might end up an atheist. It scared the living hell out of me, to be quite frank with you.

I'm currently reading Coming to Peace with Science by Darrel Falk, a book I would strongly encourage you to read (if I can say that without it sounding offensive :) Though I should say I disgree with some things in the book, myself...

In chapter 3 of the book, he lays out a number of evidences for an old earth, several of which I had never heard before: trees that show the earth is at least 12,000 years old, lake sediment that shows the earth is at least 35,000 years old, and ice cores that show the earth is at least 180,000 years old.

He also clearly explains how scientists use radioactive decay to measure the age of rocks. He acknowledges discreprencies in rock dating, but points out that tests have never shown any change in the rate of decay - no matter what kind of atmospheric changes they have artificially created in an attempt to change the rate of decay. He also points out that even if there were major errors in the dating of rocks, the discrepencies could not possibly change the age of rocks from say 1.5 billion years old to 6,000 years old or even 100,000 years old. It's as if God put ticking clocks into the rocks to let us know how long they'd been here... And the old age of earth rocks obviously agrees with the old age of the universe, as evidenced by starlight reaching the earth from billions of light years away.


In the book, Falk mentions this link for more info. on the subject:

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

Dr. Roger C. Wiens

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

-

[mpb1]

Notable Christians Open to an Old-universe, Old-earth Perspective

http://reasons.org/resources/apologe...rs/index.shtml

This page contains dozens of quotes from top apologists in favor of an old earth, old universe...


-----------------------------


Also, I didn't know this wealth of information was even online...


ONLINE ARTICLES / AUDIOS SUPPORTING DAY-AGE CREATION

FROM HUGH ROSS / REASONS TO BELIEVE:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apo...n_vs_evolution

http://www.reasons.org/resources/index.shtml

--

(previosuly mentioned)

ONLINE ARTICLES SUPPORTING DAY-AGE CREATION

FROM RICH DEEM / GOD AND SCIENCE

http://godandscience.org/evolution/index.html

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.html


-----------------------------


ONLINE ARTICLES FROM ASA3 SCIENTISTS & RESEARCHERS

SUPPORTING THEISTIC EVOLUTION, DAY-AGE CREATION, ETC.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible...d%20Science%CA

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/index.html


-----------------------------


Know of other great article links? Please post 'em :)

[mpb1]

Oximudd sent me this by PM:

Though I understand it is hard to cross post, I am at a disadvantage to interact with you over in Prot, as I am basically a TE.

Hey Jim,

I didn't realize theistic evolution was considered to be outside the realm of Creationism, but I can see how that makes sense. I may have to get this thread moved after all :)

I had a question for you though. I say this a while back, but for some reason it has become painfully clear to me their are
two major questions unanswered in the YEC/OEC camp.

1) The issue of the use of our knowledge of nature to selectively reinterpret quite a bit of scripture without a second thought, BUT going bonkers at the same in Genesis.

2) The fact that the structure of the Earth and Cosmos described in Genesis 1:6-8 is so completely out of connection with reality, that one MUST reinterpret the words to make ANY sense of it at all applying a 21st century knowledge of the structure of the solar system and universe. These two verses, if taken lterally, place a fixed expanse or surface above the earth with a mass of water positioned/resting on top(ostensibly an explanation for the blue sky), and the sun moon and stars placed within it. Implicit here is also the understanding of a flat earth, and the sun/moon and stars literally rising and setting each day - moving across the 'expanse'.

In light of that, I can't see how we can even begin to think God intends for us to accept Genesis 1 as a literal description of His creative work. This is in the text evidence (coupled with the most basic of physical understading) that tells me Gen 1(and likely 2 and 3 as well) MUST have been painted in the language and tradition of the culture to which it was given.


One final question/comment

Do you at this time still feel it undermines the authority and inspiration of scripture if God chose to give us Genesis in those terms: more symbolic, containing references more geared to the culture and time given, with an emphasis on spiritual truth rather than physical truth?


Jim

As you know, I have chronicled my ignorance from day one on this topic. So all I am doing is searching for the best information available to make sense of it in my own mind. (I suppose that describes a lot of other people around here as well.)

Figuring this out became an obsession for me when I thought my entire faith was going to fall apart if Genesis turned out to be completely inaccurate, based on modern science. So I have been researching online, reading everything I can to make sense of it.

As you pointed out above, the more I've read, the more it seems that those who have worked through this issue have come to believe that the story of Creation does not have to be read literally in order for the Bible to be a message from God. I'm still working on finding a comfort level with this view, but the more I study, the more a non-literal understanding of the Creation story seems to make sense.

Beyond the Creation story however, I still don't see how it's possible in any way to interpret Adam as an allegorical figure. I believe the genealogies, the biographical information, and the New Testament references to Adam make an allegorical reading impossible. So I have to believe in a literal Adam, and I have to believe the genealogies were meant to be historical (though probably not inerrent).

At this point, my conclusions are that...


- The Creation story may not have been intended to be taken literally, which would allow for science to explain the details.

- God may have used evolution to bring about Creation or He may have created new species over time, as in the day-age view of Creation.

- The veracity of both the Old and New Testament depends on Adam being a literal person, though it appears there may have been other human-like creatures on earth prior to Adam's 'creation.'

- Adam may have simply been the first human 'created' in the image of God, and if DNA 'shared ancestry' evidence is correct, Adam must have been 'created' from an existing species of hominid.

- - - - - - - - -

I'm still looking for holes in theistic evolution and the day-age view, to better understand which is most most plausible, but I'm starting to think it may not make much difference either way, as far as my faith is concerned - thank God! :)

[Jorge]

You are right, if we assume the earth is billions of years old, I agree that we have a serious problem, at least if we take Genesis at face vale.

Okay ... ... then, if you know this, why shift over to that position? Perhaps below ...

Which is one of the reasons there are so many atheists,

There are many Atheists because they do not wish to submit to God - period!
The rest is just window-dressing meant to justify their rebellious decision.

and why people like you (and me - until recently) will fight tooth and nail to keep the earth young.

Frankly, I don't "fight to keep the earth young". I fight to keep people from distorting God's Word so as to allow the introduction of vain philosophies and false doctrines. In doing that, the earth remains young.

As far as my thread you mentioned about 'Taking the Blinders Off,' these issues have become an obessesion for me - because I HAVE to find a way to reasonbly resolve them. In the last couple weeks, I have questioned the veractity of Scripture and Christianity more than ever in my entire life...

I'll pray for your spiritual crisis. Just one word : be very, very careful of the source(s) where you seek advice from. I assure you, there are those out there that would like nothing better than to see you abandon God and His Word and adopt some man-made view of "reality". As God tells us, be sure to "test all spirits".

Though now that I have basically narrowed it down in my own mind to one of two choices - either Theistic Evolution or Day-Age Creation, my cognitive dissonance has been reduced to a managable level. For a few days, I actually wondered if I might end up an atheist. It scared the living hell out of me, to be quite frank with you.

I have stated many times here at TWeb that NO Christian merely wakes up one morning and says, "Hmmm ... I think today I'll become an Atheist." Rather, the process is usually gradual and in every case that I know of involves adopting old earth and evolutionary thoughts. IOW, I have never known of an ex-Christian (even "great" ones such as Templeton) that did not first accept billions of years. THAT should tell you something.

I'm currently reading Coming to Peace with Science by Darrel Falk, a book I would strongly encourage you to read (if I can say that without it sounding offensive :) Though I should say I disgree with some things in the book, myself...

What's the essence ... the main thesis? Oops, you say so below ...

In chapter 3 of the book, he lays out a number of evidences for an old earth, several of which I had never heard before: trees that show the earth is at least 12,000 years old, lake sediment that shows the earth is at least 35,000 years old, and ice cores that show the earth is at least 180,000 years old.

One word : i-n-t-e-r-p-r-e-t-a-t-i-o-n. I know of these 'evidences'. They are unconvincing.

He also clearly explains how scientists use radioactive decay to measure the age of rocks. He acknowledges discreprencies in rock dating, but points out that tests have never shown any change in the rate of decay - no matter what kind of atmospheric changes they have artificially created in an attempt to change the rate of decay. He also points out that even if there were major errors in the dating of rocks, the discrepencies could not possibly change the age of rocks from say 1.5 billion years old to 6,000 years old or even 100,000 years old. It's as if God put ticking clocks into the rocks to let us know how long they'd been here... And the old age of earth rocks obviously agrees with the old age of the universe, as evidenced by starlight reaching the earth from billions of light years away.

Same comment as above.

However, and for the third (or is it fourth?) time, I remind you of the critical question : is it even possible to introduce billions of years without having to distort/"rewrite" Scripture? I've never found anyone able to do so and the more I study the matter the less I believe such a thing is possible.

You need to very seriously consider what/who constitutes the final authority in your life. If you think these people don't have unresolved questions then you simply haven't done your homework. They've got tons of questions. SO DO WE. Thus, since everyone has questions, who will you 'stand by' while those questions get answered?

In the book, Falk mentions this link for more info. on the subject:

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

Dr. Roger C. Wiens

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

-

Thanks for the link.

Jorge

[mpb1]

Hey Jorge,

I finished that Falk book last night, Coming to Peace with Science. Then I scanned through The Language of God by Francis Collins. (If you watch his video at www.asa3.org, there's really no need to read the book. The video covers all the same territory, only with fewer words.)

Coming to Peace with Science is a much better, more comprehensive book. It's basically a treatise on theistic evolution. Falk ever-so-gently tries to shift the reader's mind into accepting the 'facts' piece by piece - from the age of the the earth, to the fossils, to the DNA evidence. Though he leaves Genesis an unanswered question, essentially saying that once we allegorize Creation, it doesn't really matter. (He also assures the reader that this allegorizing of Creation should not lead to an undermining of other essential Christian doctrines, like the Resurrection.)

But it matters a great deal to me. For reasons I explained in posts above, I believe Adam MUST have been a historical figure.

But the book did a pretty good job convincing me that 'gradual creation' (as Falk refers to TE) is much more in line with science than 'sudden creation' over any amount of time. To me, the onus is on the day-age ('sudden creation') view to disprove the 'shared ancestry' DNA evidence, which I find extremely compelling.

As far as your warnings Jorge, I don't take them lightly. You have been studying this topic far longer than I have. So I respect your admonitions. However, I'm afraid I now see the world differently than I once did, and at this moment, I believe I would stake my life on the belief that the earth and the universe are over 100,000 years old. Once you look at the evidence objectively, you can't un-convince yourself. But you are afraid to believe anything which appears to go against Scripture (as I was). I'm sure God sees your heart is right, whether or not He would want you to acknowledge modern scientific research as being honest and accurate.

I've said it over and over again - that since I was a kid, I've defended the YEC view because I believed (as you do) that any other view was completely incompatible with Scripture. And just recently, when I opened my eyes to other possibilities - especially when I started looking at the evidence for evolution - over several days, I actually feared I could end up an atheist.

But God kept me from losing my faith altogether, thankfully! And I'm working my way back to a confident faith.

It seems there isn't enough information YET to fully resolve Genesis with science. In The Language of God, Collins says that he doesn't see how Adam and Eve could have been literal because, "Population geneticists, whose discipline involves the use of mathematical tools to reconstruct the history of populations of animals, plants, or bacteria, look at these facts about the human genome and conclude that they point to all members of our species having descended from a common set of founders, approximately 10,000 in number, who lived about 100,000 to 150,000 years ago. This information fits well with the fossil record, which in turn place the location of those founding ancestors most likely in East Africa."

Then he says, "...the biblical texts themselves seem to suggest there were other humans present at the same time that Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden." He mentions Cain's wife.

Collins continues, "The real dilemma for the believer comes down to whether Genesis 2 is describing a special act of miraculous creation that applied to a historical couple, making them biologically different from all other creatures that had walked the earth, or whether this is a powerful and poetic allegory of God's plan for the entrance of the spiritual nature (the soul) and the Moral Law into humanity."

Since I have to believe Adam and Ever were literal (again, Genesis 5 alone forces me to have this perspective), then I have to wonder how the genealogies could lead us to believe that Adam and Eve lived 6,000 years ago, when science is saying it was a much larger group of 'founders' who lived 100,000 years ago?

And should we believe that God breathed his Spirit into either a human-like creature or a fully-formed human - to 'create' Adam?

I don't know. Right now, I believe Genesis was meant to be understood as a literal account of history, at least after the possibly-figurative account of (what I currently suspect was a gradual/evolutionary) Creation. I also believe the earth is billions of years old. So like everybody else, I'll probably have to keep wrestling with the issue - trusting that the facts of science will eventually reconcile with at least a 'reasonable' understanding of Genesis.

With all my heart, I worry for the millions of fundamentalists who've stood on YEC as if it was synonymous with Scripture. If I hadn't spent weeks researching the details to make sense of it all, I potentially could have walked away from the faith, seeing Christianity and science as completely unresolvable.

As has been attested to on this forum, many already have, and I'm sure that many more will in the future. I pray that as the evidence for an old earth and biological evolution becomes increasingly more convincing that godly teachers (like Falk) will come along to reassure Christians they don't have to abandon the faith in order to acknowledge science as true.

-

Below are some links to a video seminar I watched recently. This presentation is called the 'You Can Understand the Bible' Seminar by Dr. Bob Utley. He puts a number of things into perspective, including Creation. He also does a good job of keeping your attention!

You can visit this page http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/ and scroll down near the bottom, where you'll see the links, or use these:

'You Can Understand the Bible' Seminar - Online Video Presentation by Dr. Bob Utley

Broadband links:

Part 1: http://www.biblelessonsintl.com/fbc/video/utb1bb.WMV
Part 2: http://www.biblelessonsintl.com/fbc/video/utb2bb.WMV
Part 3: http://www.biblelessonsintl.com/fbc/video/utb3bb.WMV

-

[mpb1]

In post #59 on page 4 of this thread, I quoted another post from GR Morton.

Then I PM'd him to ask what this meant:

The biggest problem these ideas have is that they don't have that missing piece of data in the Med. Most think it doesn't exist, and I can't wish it into existence. Nor can I claim my views are true until such a time as it is found. But I won't ignore data as other apologists do."

To my question above, GR sent me this reponse by PM:

First off you should know that I would describe myself as a biblical literalist, but an evolutionary, old earth Biblical literalist. I have a page on theological issue at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/theo.htm

I am convinced that unless Christian apologetics takes a new road away from YEC, away from Anti-evolutionism, but also away from liberal-the-bible-is-false theologies, we will never solve these issues.

I believe that the flood was local, it was in the Mediterranean basin 5 million years ago. I am just finishing a 2 volume pamphlet on who was Adam which discusses the archaeological evidence for all of the features that mark us as humans existing millions of years ago. Religion goes back at least to 425,000 years and I could argue much older. If they were religious, they were HUMAN.

Now, what I am lacking is positive evidence for a preflood civilization on the bottom of the Mediterranean. But no one has that, not even the yecs. That is what that is about.

See http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF12-97Morton.html

for a discussion of the Mediterranean flood idea.

-

[Jorge]

Hey Jorge,

I finished that Falk book last night, Coming to Peace with Science. Then I scanned through The Language of God by Francis Collins. (If you watch his video at www.asa3.org, there's really no need to read the book. The video covers all the same territory, only with fewer words.)

Coming to Peace with Science is a much better, more comprehensive book. It's basically a treatise on theistic evolution. Falk ever-so-gently tries to shift the reader's mind into accepting the 'facts' piece by piece - from the age of the the earth, to the fossils, to the DNA evidence. Though he leaves Genesis an unanswered question, essentially saying that once we allegorize Creation, it doesn't really matter. (He also assures the reader that this allegorizing of Creation should not lead to an undermining of other essential Christian doctrines, like the Resurrection.)

But it matters a great deal to me. For reasons I explained in posts above, I believe Adam MUST have been a historical figure.

But the book did a pretty good job convincing me that 'gradual creation' (as Falk refers to TE) is much more in line with science than 'sudden creation' over any amount of time. To me, the onus is on the day-age ('sudden creation') view to disprove the 'shared ancestry' DNA evidence, which I find extremely compelling.

As far as your warnings Jorge, I don't take them lightly. You have been studying this topic far longer than I have. So I respect your admonitions. However, I'm afraid I now see the world differently than I once did, and at this moment, I believe I would stake my life on the belief that the earth and the universe are over 100,000 years old. Once you look at the evidence objectively, you can't un-convince yourself. But you are afraid to believe anything which appears to go against Scripture (as I was). I'm sure God sees your heart is right, whether or not He would want you to acknowledge modern scientific research as being honest and accurate.

I've said it over and over again - that since I was a kid, I've defended the YEC view because I believed (as you do) that any other view was completely incompatible with Scripture. And just recently, when I opened my eyes to other possibilities - especially when I started looking at the evidence for evolution - over several days, I actually feared I could end up an atheist.

But God kept me from losing my faith altogether, thankfully! And I'm working my way back to a confident faith.

It seems there isn't enough information YET to fully resolve Genesis with science. In The Language of God, Collins says that he doesn't see how Adam and Eve could have been literal because, "Population geneticists, whose discipline involves the use of mathematical tools to reconstruct the history of populations of animals, plants, or bacteria, look at these facts about the human genome and conclude that they point to all members of our species having descended from a common set of founders, approximately 10,000 in number, who lived about 100,000 to 150,000 years ago. This information fits well with the fossil record, which in turn place the location of those founding ancestors most likely in East Africa."

Then he says, "...the biblical texts themselves seem to suggest there were other humans present at the same time that Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden." He mentions Cain's wife.

Collins continues, "The real dilemma for the believer comes down to whether Genesis 2 is describing a special act of miraculous creation that applied to a historical couple, making them biologically different from all other creatures that had walked the earth, or whether this is a powerful and poetic allegory of God's plan for the entrance of the spiritual nature (the soul) and the Moral Law into humanity."

Since I have to believe Adam and Ever were literal (again, Genesis 5 alone forces me to have this perspective), then I have to wonder how the genealogies could lead us to believe that Adam and Eve lived 6,000 years ago, when science is saying it was a much larger group of 'founders' who lived 100,000 years ago?

And should we believe that God breathed his Spirit into either a human-like creature or a fully-formed human - to 'create' Adam?

I don't know. Right now, I believe Genesis was meant to be understood as a literal account of history, at least after the possibly-figurative account of (what I currently suspect was a gradual/evolutionary) Creation. I also believe the earth is billions of years old. So like everybody else, I'll probably have to keep wrestling with the issue - trusting that the facts of science will eventually reconcile with at least a 'reasonable' understanding of Genesis.

With all my heart, I worry for the millions of fundamentalists who've stood on YEC as if it was synonymous with Scripture. If I hadn't spent weeks researching the details to make sense of it all, I potentially could have walked away from the faith, seeing Christianity and science as completely unresolvable.

As has been attested to on this forum, many already have, and I'm sure that many more will in the future. I pray that as the evidence for an old earth and biological evolution becomes increasingly more convincing that godly teachers (like Falk) will come along to reassure Christians they don't have to abandon the faith in order to acknowledge science as true.

-

Below are some links to a video seminar I watched recently. This presentation is called the 'You Can Understand the Bible' Seminar by Dr. Bob Utley. He puts a number of things into perspective, including Creation. He also does a good job of keeping your attention!

You can visit this page http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/ and scroll down near the bottom, where you'll see the links, or use these:

'You Can Understand the Bible' Seminar - Online Video Presentation by Dr. Bob Utley

Broadband links:

Part 1: http://www.biblelessonsintl.com/fbc/video/utb1bb.WMV
Part 2: http://www.biblelessonsintl.com/fbc/video/utb2bb.WMV
Part 3: http://www.biblelessonsintl.com/fbc/video/utb3bb.WMV

-

Okay, I watched the first part of Utley's seminar. I have just two more things to say to you here :

(1) I've provided you with some of what you need to help vanquish your spiritual crisis - the rest is up to you. Pray and seek more from God and less from men.

(2) I'd take Utley with a block of salt - a big block. He does say some things that are true - there's no question about that. But he also said far too many things that made me play that section of the presentation again to make sure I heard correctly. Overall, my impression of Utley is decidedly unfavorable. There was way too much focus on the 'I' and on what is best described as theological relativism. Frankly, the man scared me in the sense that he's loose spreading such teachings. I'm not insinuating that he's wicked or intentionally deceptive (that's a call for God only). I am saying that his teachings contain a lot of bad stuff for Christians.

You're old enough to decide for yourself (at least I think you are). Make your own determination.
My advice : be very careful with what comes out of Utleys' mouth!

Jorge

[mpb1]

Okay, I watched the first part of Utley's seminar. I have just two more things to say to you here :

(1) I've provided you with some of what you need to help vanquish your spiritual crisis - the rest is up to you. Pray and seek more from God and less from men.

(2) I'd take Utley with a block of salt - a big block. He does say some things that are true - there's no question about that. But he also said far too many things that made me play that section of the presentation again to make sure I heard correctly. Overall, my impression of Utley is decidedly unfavorable. There was way too much focus on the 'I' and on what is best described as theological relativism. Frankly, the man scared me in the sense that he's loose spreading such teachings. I'm not insinuating that he's wicked or intentionally deceptive (that's a call for God only). I am saying that his teachings contain a lot of bad stuff for Christians.

You're old enough to decide for yourself (at least I think you are). Make your own determination.
My advice : be very careful with what comes out of Utleys' mouth!

Jorge

Thanks Jorge,

For a Baptist with a fundamentalist background, I like the way he opened himself up to 'possibilities' leading away from absolute dogmatism about every friggin' interpretation :) ...something I finally learned recently.

Obviously, that kind of 'open' thinking could lead to problems, but it could also prevent people with personalities like you and me from digging our heels in on debatable doctrines (like the literalness of the Creation story), only to find out we may been wrong - and then wonder what that does to the rest of our faith.

I mentioned the similarity in personalities only because I was almost a carbon copy of you - in idealogy and inflexibility - and I know there are many other fundamentialists like us. When people like that (or people like us) encounter faith problems, I think they are more likely to go the way of Doubting John or FormerFundy (as I could have myself). It's ALL RIGHT or it's ALL WRONG! All or nothing extremism, so to speak...

Dr. Utley takes the edge off of otherwise 'life and death' interpretations... That's what I like about him. To be honest though, I never heard of the guy before yesterday afternoon (seriously). He e-mailed me out of the blue, through EvangelismForum.com. I invited him here, don't know if he'll come or not :)

-

[mpb1]

I decided I'd try turning my lemons into lemonade, and hopefully help a few people get through the same maze I've been working through recently...

So a couple days ago, I registered www.OriginScience.com, and I'm going to work on a site with links to TWeb threads and other pertinent articles on this topic.

I just put up a template, and I'll be adding content soon. Any suggestions are welcome.

(Jeorge, I know you'll disagree with the entire premise of the site, but I promise I'll make certain your view is well represented, with links to all the best YEC sites, to boot :) The site may never develop into anything. But I figured it's worth a try, and may help a few people - eventually...

[Tophet]

Dear mpb1,

How old is your house?

Is its age determined by when it was built, or by the age of the materials used in its construction?

How old is the earth?

Is its age determined by when it was built, or by the age of the materials used in its construction?

Jesus turned water into wine virtually instantaneously. Likewise an omnipotent God can fabricate matter.

If people can accept that STAR TREK’s holodeck and replicator technologies can materialize fully adult humans, fully-cooked foods, and fully “aged” materials, people should also accept God can do the same thing on a grander scale.

In a matter of days, God gave us a fully-formed and functional earth.

[mpb1]

Tophet,

I'd say you were preaching to the choir, except that the choir has left the building :)

For years, I believed that God created the earth with the appearance of age. I still have no question that He could if He chose to.

But once you get beyond the surface of that argument, you realize that IF He created the earth with the appearance of age, then He also created it with many EVIDENCES to the contrary.

I finally gave up on YEC, only when I had no other choice. The evidence was just too overwhelming. I'm gathering links and information on the subject at www.OriginScience.com. If you visit the site and click 'Young Earth Creationism' on the left, you'll see links to YEC-promoting sites, and links to YEC-disproving sites, including information on the methods used to date the earth, such as radiometric dating. Yes, you can debate the accuracy of such methods, but once you study it, and have a good understanding of how it works, it becomes very hard to say the 'clock' in the rocks saying two, or three, or four billion years, should really say 6,000 years.

And even if you don't trust radiometric dating, there are other natural ways of measuring time, like rings in glaciers from annual snowfall, going back 180,000 years. Also, tree rings show the earth is at least 12,000 years old, and lake sediments show it is least 35,000 years old. (1)


1 - Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology, by Darrel R. Falk. IVP 2006.

The book is a treatise for theistic evolution. I can't fully agree with the book because the author believes that Adam may not have been a literal person. Instead, Falk says that God may have intended the story to paint a picture - as allegory - rather than being literal. And this becomes a serious problem when you look at the genealogies from Adam to Noah (and beyond), as well as the references to Adam in the New Testament.

At this moment, there is no easy way to reconcile science with Genesis, while seeing Adam as literal. But the book is a good starting place. The reviews of the book on Amazon are also very helpful - here: http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0830827420/


The Falk book was referred to me by Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, who was kind enough to respond to an e-mail I sent him, asking questions about his online video, which you can watch at www.asa3.org. The video is based on Dr. Collins' book, The Language of God. (if you watch the video, you don't need his book :) But Coming to Peace with Science is well worth reading.


One last note: I'm personally still hoping that DNA research won't completely eliminate the possibility of the Day-Age view of gradual creation, which says that God created species 'instantly' over long periods of time. (See www.GodandScience.org and www.Reasons.org.) But so far, the evidence seems to be pointing in the direction of evolution. Once you understand the DNA evidence showing 'shared ancestry' leading up to humans, there's not much you can honestly say to argue against it (at least, not at this point). In his book, Falk does a good job of making the concept understandable for beginners...

-