Showing posts with label old earth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label old earth. Show all posts

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Those low life pond scum Old earth creationists

To listen to the Young Earth Creationist crowd, especially those who drive the movement, we Old Earth Creationists are low life pond scum - slimy, unevolved paramecium and other low lifes. OK, so my YEC brethren stop short of putting it like that but they don't stop short on much else. And feel free to sue me for making a broad generalization of the YEC crowd.

Twenty years ago I enjoyed some informative and enlightening online dialogue with YEC folks. It's only my anecdotal read on the thing, but I don't see much of that any more. The main reason, I will opine, is that YEC folks are steeped in polemics, in breathless, chicken little pronouncements about how accepting an old earth will lead to the death of conservative, evangelical Christianity. I see this all the time. Unfortunately, there are only a handful people and organizations who drive the YEC movement and I see their brusque treatment of OEC folks parroted incessantly, down to the same arguments, even vocabulary.

This is why I particularly appreciate Baptist Press for reporting like yesterday's piece, Length of creation days debated.

What? There is an actual debate to be had on the subject?

Non-24-hour-day people can actually have legitimate arguments?

OEC folks aren't a short step from apostasy and perdition?

There are intelligent, articulate Southern Baptists, including seminary professors who are OEC?

Seminary leaders allow differing views on the matter by their employees?

OEC/YEC belief is a secondary doctrinal issue?

Belief in old earth creationism falls within the Baptist Faith and Message?

All true.

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary theology professor Ken Keathley, who has been on my radar for several years, says flatly that, "Many of the strongest proponents of the old-earth interpretation are Old Testament scholars." He believes that OEC is gaining more adherents among pastors and leaders. It's about time.

Maybe we can get back to having reasonable, respectful discussions of the matter.

But then, reasonable, respectful discussions don't stir the masses to give to the YEC organizations, nor do they generate those hearty "AMENs" from the pulpit.

Try it. Respectful dialogue might be less profitable for the YEC fundraisers but more profitable for the Kingdom. I think the latter is our goal, anyway.








Thursday, January 20, 2011

Young earth, old earth...who's the new sheriff in town?

Why, the young earth crowd rules in the SBC these days. Actually, the article below is from last fall.

HOW OLD? Age of Earth debated among SBC scholars

Dembski: “The young earth-solution to reconciling the order of creation with natural history makes good exegetical and theological sense,” wrote Dembski, who holds Ph.D. degrees in both philosophy and mathematics and is a leading proponent of the Intelligent Design movement. “Indeed, the overwhelming consensus of theologians up through the Reformation held to this view. I myself would adopt it in a heartbeat except that nature seems to present such strong evidence against it.”

Nettles: In response to The End of Christianity, Tom Nettles, professor of historical theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., wrote a review in which he critiqued Dembski for allegedly letting scientific commitments to trump the most natural reading of the Bible. The review appeared in The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology (Vol. 13.4, 2009), Southern Seminary’s official theological journal.

Patterson: Southwestern Seminary president Paige Patterson told the Witness that while he disagrees with Dembski’s assessment of the earth’s age, he is confident of his character, Christian commitment and adherence to the Baptist Faith & Message.

Mohler: Even though the disagreement between old- and young-earth creationists is a less important issue, it still has crucial implications, according to Mohler.
“Theologically, the historical Adam as the common ancestor of the human race is the most important issue. But the question is, how in the world do you end up with an historical Adam if you have an old earth?” he said. “It’s becoming increasingly clear that an old earth implies something other than an historical Adam.” Mohler worries that most Christians who hold to an old earth are not thinking through all the logical implications of their position.

Wise: Kurt Wise, professor of biology at Truett-McConnell College in Cleveland, Ga., agrees. He obtained a Ph.D. at Harvard under the famed evolutionist Stephen J. Gould and has long advocated a young earth as the only position compatible with Scripture. He replaced Dembski on Southern’s faculty in 2006. “Believing in a young creation is in no way a requirement for salvation,” Wise told the Witness in an email. “I do believe, however, that it is impossible to consistently believe in both an old earth and inerrant Scripture.”

What is missing from the article, basically just a string of quotes from the various SBC worthies, is a serious treatment of the physical evidence for an old earth. It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to reconcile many streams of old earth evidence with what seems to be the requisite extremely young earth.

The occasions I have heard folks actually tackle the physical evidence, it has been less than believable. This is understandable, since the difference is between billions of years and thousands of years – not an easy slam dunk, unless merely being dismissive is allowed. Even Wise, who is most qualified of this crowd to assess the age of the earth as estimated by the various contemporary scientific disciplines, is quoted (not in this article) to the effect that the evidence is not present for a young earth, as we understand physical evidence, but that one day he is confident that it will be. That is faith.

Debating any of this with our leading theologians, paleontologists, and scientists is much beyond my limited skills, but I think it to be extremely difficult to build a credible case for an earth no older than ten thousand years.

I am pleased, however, that it appears we aren’t in a mode to run the old-earth creationists out of town.