Dr. Jim Hamilton is happy to be a young earther, and so am I. He posts three reasons to think that the earth is not old, as in millions or billions of years, but young, as in thousands of years. Ultimately it comes down to how one views Scripture. And while Hamilton admits there may be things he doesn’t fully understand, when it comes down to it he wants “to interpret science and archeology from the biblical text rather than re-interpreting the biblical text in light of science and archeology.”
To this I give a big “AMEN!” It is painful to see so many theologians I respect capitulate to the scientific community on this issue, whether than simply letting the God-breathed text speak. Theories that accompany the old earth argument never fail to introduce whole hosts of irreconcilable theological problems which, quite frankly, are bigger problems than trying to lose face with the academy.
You can and should read Hamilton’s three reasons here.
Facebook
Twitter
In the sixties I took notes on Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitecomb’s The Genesis Flood. I was amazed at the depth and value of what they had done. While there were problems, their critics have not told the truth about what they did. And the fact that the present day scientifc method has flaws in it was not generally known then.
Matt,
You basically say that you and Hamilton reject the old-earth view because you both want “to interpret science and archeology from the biblical text rather than re-interpreting the biblical text in light of science and archeology.”
One shouldn’t reject an old-earth view because “we can’t/shouldn’t let science tell us how to interpret the bible.” To do so is disingenuous given that we already let science tell us some of what Scripture can and can’t say. After all, we don’t believe the earth goes around the sun because Scripture tells us this. We believe it because science has proven this to be the case. What’s our motivation for taking some passages of scripture as “phenomenal” rather than literal? It seems to me that science helps us with this question.
So, one might reject an old-earth view because she thinks there is no science in support of it (which is, in my opinion, mistaken). However, accepting, without qualification, the principle that “science can’t/shouldn’t tell us how to interpret the bible” only lands one in a case of special pleading when that same person also accepts the idea that the earth goes around the sun. It puts one in the position of saying, “Science CAN tell us that the earth goes around the sun and that the language in Scripture which suggests otherwise is merely phenomenal language. But! we CAN’T let science tell us that the earth is old because…insert whatever excuse you like…” I’ve never understood why so many Christians oppose evolution.
Lastly, you seem to suggest that theologians only accept evolution as true (or likely true) because they’re trying to “save (I think you meant to say, “save”…?) face with the academy.” This seems presumptuous. Why can’t they accept it because they believe there is good evidence for it?
I would like to hear what you have to say about this.
Btw, if you’re looking for a good reads on this issue, I recommend these pieces:
1. http://intellectualcurrency.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/whos-intolerance-which-indoctrination/
2. http://intellectualcurrency.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/choosing-between-science-and-theology/
3. http://intellectualcurrency.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/science-and-faith-a-word-to-the-christian-community-part-2/
Best,
Michael