Six-Day Creation: Is it worth the battle?

[DMcFadden]

I am not criticizing anybody I have no real objection to the young earth view I just feel that some of it's proponents can be a tad bit over zealous that's really the only hold up I have I understand the use of science in proofing the young earth theory but doesn't this just end up turning into a shell game?

My contention would be that the "facts" are capable of diverse interpretations, depending upon one's presuppositional framework. Begin with a fossil and you can explain it "scientifically" with a 250 million year conclusion or equally "scientifically" with a 6,000-10,000 year dating system. What separates the old earth from the young earth scientist is not where they obtained their PhD, but what presuppositions they begin with. The Big Bang, for instance, has only been "dogma" for a few decades (it became popular during my childhood). It suffers from manifold problems of contraindications that scientists swallow hard and dismiss in order to uphold their belief in a 13.8 billion year old universe.

Do YEC's have problems explaining some facts? Sure! The distant starlight problem choked me for several decades and kept me from the YEC position. However, the 13.8 billion year date of the Big Bang cannot explain the distances separating observed entities in the known universe. Frankly, light could not make the trip in the 13.8 billion time available according to the Big Bang either.

 

[DMcFadden]

Dennis, who was the TMS prof that wrote the article. I either missed it in the thread, or something.

Dr. Steven Boyd. Check out Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry for a download in PDF format.

Beware, some of it is in neither English nor Hebrew, but MATH!

Logistic regression: model evaluation
Logistic regression is ideal for our data, because a text is either a narrative or poetry, with assigned probabilities (P) of 1 and 0, respectively.5 We determined the coefficients of the equation for the curve that fit this non-linear data by maximizing the logarithm of the odds (P/(1-P)) for the ratios of preterites to finite verbs for the 97 texts analyzed.6

To determine our model's goodness of fit, we calculated the "model chi-squared" statistic to test the null hypothesis that our model did no better than the model with zero coefficients.7 Our model rejected this null hypothesis at a highly statistically significant level.8

We also determined R2L , a measure of the substantive significance of the model, that is, how much does the model reduce the variation from the zero coefficients model. R2L ranges from 0 (poor model) to 1 (perfect model).9 For our model R2L was .85 for the unweighted, .88 for the weighted—highly effective in reducing the variation.


Logistic regression: classification accuracy
A perfect classification model would classify all passages into their actual genre. Our model misclassified only 2 out of 97 passages.

Classification accuracy is indicated by proportional change in error (tP),10 which measures how much the model reduces error: tP = ((errors without the model) - (errors with the model))/(errors without the model).

The expected number of errors without the model for a classification model is
2nY=0nY=1/N , where nY=0 is the number of poetic texts examined, nY=1 is the number of narrative texts examined, and N is the total number of texts examined.

If tP equals 1, the model is a perfect classifier; if tP is negative, the model did worse than random classification. For our model tP was 0.96—highly substantively significant.11

The binomial statistic was used to test the null hypothesis that the proportion incorrectly classified by the model is no lower than that of random classification. Our model also rejected this null hypothesis at a highly statistically significant level.12 Our model is a superb classifier.

 

[Wannabee]

Thanks. I was a little confused. He's actually a prof at the college, not the seminary. It's a different campus, and there are only a couple of professors who teach at both. I've seen this before. At one time I sorta understood; but I have no idea how now. I must have left those brain cells behind in the move.

 

[holyfool33]

I am not criticizing anybody I have no real objection to the young earth view I just feel that some of it's proponents can be a tad bit over zealous that's really the only hold up I have I understand the use of science in proofing the young earth theory but doesn't this just end up turning into a shell game?

My contention would be that the "facts" are capable of diverse interpretations, depending upon one's presuppositional framework. Begin with a fossil and you can explain it "scientifically" with a 250 million year conclusion or equally "scientifically" with a 6,000-10,000 year dating system. What separates the old earth from the young earth scientist is not where they obtained their PhD, but what presuppositions they begin with. The Big Bang, for instance, has only been "dogma" for a few decades (it became popular during my childhood). It suffers from manifold problems of contraindictions that scientists swallow hard and dismiss in order to uphold their belief in a 13.8 billion year old universe.

Do YEC's have problems explaining some facts? Sure! The distant starlight problem choked me for several decades and kept me from the YEC position. However, the 13.8 billion year date of the Big Bang cannot explain the distances separating observed entities in the known universe. Frankly, light could not make the trip in the 13.8 billion time available according to the Big Bang.

Good point I see that it makes since it is based on presuppositions I see what your saying now it begins to click o.k. I finally get it.

 

[allenckc]

I've read the book written by Vern and he mentioned a mature-version of creation, what do you think ? Personally I quite buy this assumption.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Just supporting the premise that "day" is mutable.

Douglas F. Kelly's Creation and Change: Genesis 1.1 - 2.4 in the Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms was the book that caused R.C. Sproul to change his view from endorsing Hugh Ross to accept a six-day creationist view.

A Hebrew scholar from Master's Seminary also subjects the Genesis account to a rigorous statistical analysis, essentially "proving" the narrative nature of the text and the impossibility of a poetic reading (cf. pgs. 173ff of Thousands Not Billions, ed. Donald DeYoung).

F Kelly also was instrumental in changing my mind.

 

[Confessor]

Literary Framework Interpretation

I have seen that a young-earth Creationist belief is rampant in this forum. This saddens me, as I am a staunch theistic evolutionist. Please, can someone tell me why a literary framework interpretation of the first few chapters in Genesis is theologically untenable, or why a literal interpretation is necessary?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

First question is why does it sadden you?

Second to answer your inquiry simply the Hebrew in gen 1 does not allow for a literary reading.

 

[py3ak]

How does our Lord treat the book of Genesis in His references and allusions to it? Assuming that there were grounds for a debate, which I don't admit, I think that would be a conclusive answer for believers.

 

[Confessor]

First question is why does it sadden you?

Second to answer your inquiry simply the Hebrew in gen 1 does not allow for a literary reading.

It saddens me because I know of an inordinate amount of evidence in favor of an old earth and evolution, and the lack of many Christians supporting such obvious science, I have seen, obstructs paths to salvation. As Augustine said in his The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book 1, Chapter 19:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the Earth, the Heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.​

And what about the Hebrew disallows the framework interpretation?

How does our Lord treat the book of Genesis in His references and allusions to it? Assuming that there were grounds for a debate, which I don't admit, I think that would be a conclusive answer for believers.

The only one I know of is the command to rest on the Sabbath, which can easily be demonstrated by the framework interpretation rather than by a literal resting of God. What are other references and allusions that require the six-day creation be fact?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Is Science infallible?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

As far as the Hebrew the use of the Waw-Consecutive by Moses is nearly only found in historical writings.

 

[MW]

And what about the Hebrew disallows the framework interpretation?

Nothing in the Hebrew disallows a framework interpretation; it is the use of the framework hypothesis to exclude the concept of literal history which is disallowed by the Hebrew. The literary structure of the narrative is perfectly suited to describing the history it relates.

 

[Confessor]

Is Science infallible?

Of course not, but the corollary that any truth revealed by science is worthless is a terrible inference.

As far as the Hebrew the use of the Waw-Consecutive by Moses is nearly only found in historical writings.

Can you explain this to me, please? I simply have no idea what that is, even after extensively Google searching it.

 

[Confessor]

And what about the Hebrew disallows the framework interpretation?

Nothing in the Hebrew disallows a framework interpretation; it is the use of the framework hypothesis to exclude the concept of literal history which is disallowed by the Hebrew. The literary structure of the narrative is perfectly suited to describing the history it relates.

First of all, do you know how I can thank you so that a "thank you" signification appears under your post?

Second of all, thank you.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Is Science infallible?

Of course not, but the corollary that any truth revealed by science is worthless is a terrible inference.

How is that a corollary?

It is worth noting that I became a YEC within the last 4 months.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

And what about the Hebrew disallows the framework interpretation?

Nothing in the Hebrew disallows a framework interpretation; it is the use of the framework hypothesis to exclude the concept of literal history which is disallowed by the Hebrew. The literary structure of the narrative is perfectly suited to describing the history it relates.

First of all, do you know how I can thank you so that a "thank you" signification appears under your post?

Second of all, thank you.

It "appears" after 15 posts.

 

[Confessor]

Nothing in the Hebrew disallows a framework interpretation; it is the use of the framework hypothesis to exclude the concept of literal history which is disallowed by the Hebrew. The literary structure of the narrative is perfectly suited to describing the history it relates.

First of all, do you know how I can thank you so that a "thank you" signification appears under your post?

Second of all, thank you.

It "appears" after 15 posts.

 

[MW]

First of all, do you know how I can thank you so that a "thank you" signification appears under your post?

Second of all, thank you.

I'm glad Backwoods sorted that out because I didn't have a clue.

You're welcome! But I should clarify that I believe the order of Gen 1 is literal as well as literary. It describes "forming" and then "filling" because God first built His universal temple before furnishing it, and all in the space of six days because the seventh day -- the Sabbath -- was literally created for man.

 

[Kenneth_Murphy]

You are discussing two different things. Firstly the age of the earth and secondly evolution. From a theology perspective your view that man evolved creates many more problems than your view that the earth is old. If you hold that man evolved then there was no true Adam. Which implies Jesus isn't the second Adam and that were not saved through Christ. Also, in the Hebrew there isn't a clean break that says, hey this first part of Genesis is written in a special type of hebrew so we will use a special hermeneutic to interpret it. So if use the literary framework to remove the literalness of the first part of genesis to be consistent you would need to apply that same framework elsewhere. That is a slippery slope.

There is a good treatment of this topic in Reymond's Systematic Theology.

 

[DMcFadden]

There are a number of threads that explore this issue in exhausting (if not exhaustive) detail. Rather than recapitulating it all again, why don't you read up on some of the arguments adduced already on the PB in the last year or so and then engage in a more pointed conversation?

 

[Confessor]

You are discussing two different things. Firstly the age of the earth and secondly evolution. From a theology perspective your view that man evolved creates many more problems than your view that the earth is old. If you hold that man evolved then there was no true Adam. Which implies Jesus isn't the second Adam and that were not saved through Christ. Also, in the Hebrew there isn't a clean break that says, hey this first part of Genesis is written in a special type of hebrew so we will use a special hermeneutic to interpret it. So if use the literary framework to remove the literalness of the first part of genesis to be consistent you would need to apply that same framework elsewhere. That is a slippery slope.

There is a good treatment of this topic in Reymond's Systematic Theology.

Well, in order to counteract this implication, I have an admittedly ad hoc explanation: there is a slight "break" in the line from our common ancestor to where we are now, a point when God directly intervened to truly create man in His image (although, I don't believe He created man from nothing, it's rather an alteration as you'll see in what I say later). Obviously, there is not explicit Scripture to support this, but in order to make my beliefs consistent, I believe that there was a point in history when God instilled the first human, Adam, with a soul. Such an event allows for a significant enough disruption that, in a way, allows for a "new start" of creation with man, and from this the biblical record begins.

I have extremely limited knowledge of Hebrew though, so I would appreciate either more detail on the uniformity of the passages past Creation or a pertinent link.

There are a number of threads that explore this issue in exhausting (if not exhaustive) detail. Rather than recapitulating it all again, why don't you read up on some of the arguments adduced already on the PB in the last year or so and then engage in a more pointed conversation?

Can you link me to these or just tell me what subforums to look in? I mean, subforums outside of this one.

 

[Poimen]

There are many things in the Bible that the unbeliever finds unreasonable and irrational: such as the resurrection, the many miracles recorded throughout and even the creation of the universe by one God who reigns over all things in time and space. But no one ever said that the Bible would be reasonable to the unbeliever.

Fortunately, as the movie "Expelled" testifies to, there are some unbelievers who are finding Darwinism irrational and void of true scientific and empirical substance.

I am going to rather bluntly here then: the theistic evolutionist compromises at the most crucial point of biblical revelation, the beginning, and consequently tries to wed two different and ultimately opposing world views where only one can be the winner. I fear for people such as yourself as to what side of the fence you will ultimately come down.

I don't want to be antagonistic, especially since you just joined here, but if you cannot produce any proof from the scriptures that God used evolution to bring about the universe as we know it and maintain the teaching contra clear biblical evidence, I would say that you should keep this way of thinking to yourself. At the very least I hope you spend some time reading those other threads as Dennis suggested and really examine your beliefs.

For please note that theistic evolution is explicitly contrary to the confessions to which this board upholds, and posting of such opinions on this board would, in my opinion, be a reason for dismissing your membership. So consider this a warning.

 

[Confessor]

There are many things in the Bible that the unbeliever finds unreasonable and irrational: such as the resurrection, the many miracles recorded throughout and even the creation of the universe by one God who reigns over all things in time and space. But no one ever said that the Bible would be reasonable to the unbeliever.

Fortunately, as the movie "Expelled" testifies to, there are some unbelievers who are finding Darwinism irrational and void of true scientific and empirical substance.

I am going to rather bluntly here then: the theistic evolutionist compromises at the most crucial point of biblical revelation, the beginning, and consequently tries to wed two different and ultimately opposing world views where only one can be the winner. I fear for people such as yourself as to what side of the fence you will ultimately come down.

I don't want to be antagonistic, especially since you just joined here, but if you cannot produce any proof from the scriptures that God used evolution to bring about the universe as we know it and maintain the teaching contra clear biblical evidence, I would say that you should keep this way of thinking to yourself. At the very least I hope you spend some time reading those other threads as Dennis suggested and really examine your beliefs.

For though I don't know what the other moderators think but it is my opinion that theistic evolution is explicitly contrary to the confessions to which this board upholds, and posting of such opinions on this board would, in my opinion, be a reason for dismissing your membership. So consider this a warning. On the other if I have erred, I will certainly retract this warning and any other statements in this post that may be errant.

I'd like to start off by noting that I am apparently starting off on this forum great!

Further, here would be my quick argument for why evolution should be rational to the believer, and it is not a matter of strict presuppositions:
1. The Bible confirms that science and its presuppositions (the existence of an objective, external reality, the accountability of our senses in describing this reality, etc.) are valid.
2. Science confirms that evolution is valid.
3. Bible-believers should believe that evolution is valid.

Now, I'm hoping that, beyond the theological implications of evolution, there shouldn't be any problems with the above argument except for possibly #2.



Lastly, without getting into the specific biblical arguments for or against theistic evolution, I would like to point out that its *discussion*, in my opinion, should at least be allowed on this forum. For where else can truth lead us but to Jesus? If we fear discovering that evolution is true, then we are only fearing a potential truth of which no fear should exist.

If it is determined otherwise, if it is determined by the forum's authorities that evolution should not even be *discussed* further, then I will discuss it no further.

 

[Poimen]

First of all, let me say that I appreciate your candor and humility in regards to what I have already written.

Science is valid but as someone pointed out above, not infallible. After all modern science often carries with it many assumptions about the universe that are explicitly contradicted by God's Word. These assumptions will influence how one looks at the evidence.

For many scientists today, for example, claim that science rules out the supernatural.

In addition, some scientists (not even Christians) are now rejecting Darwinism as I pointed out above.

Therefore science is not as monolithic as you claim.

Conclusion: Darwinism, evolutionism or whatever stripe of gradual progressive theory of creation one holds to is an explicit rejection of biblical Christianity. You cannot hold to both; they are mutually incompatible. Charles Hodge rightly called evolution what it truly is: atheism.

 

[AV1611]

can someone tell me why a literary framework interpretation of the first few chapters in Genesis is theologically untenable

I agree with a framework interpretation.

 

[AV1611]

As far as the Hebrew the use of the Waw-Consecutive by Moses is nearly only found in historical writings.

So you admit that the use of the "Waw-Consecutive" by Moses is sometimes found in writings other than historical writings? That being the case your argument does not hold together.

However, I agree that Gen 1 is history, the question is what type of history and this is where the type of literature is important. It is an ANE cosmogony presented in a prose that characterises historical writings, as is similar to other ANE cosmologies. That is, it is a cosmogony presented in an historical form.

Conrad Hyers wrote a helpful article entitled “The Narrative Form of Genesis 1: Cosmongonic, Yes; Scientific No”

 

[a mere housewife]

Hi Ben, I know it's in this same forum but was wondering if you'd read all the way through this post. I thought it was pretty exhaustive/ing and it deals with the Hebrew and some other other specific points. I do think the theological implications of theistic evolution are simply untenable, and am not sure with what certainty we are to approach the resurrection and Christ's other miracles if we begin to allow science to be authoritative in interpreting Scripture. As others have noted, just because a passage has a literary structure doesn't mean it isn't literal historical truth.

As regards science, they treat 'theory' in this area as established fact. Science is properly a tool to observe things that can be observed; not a philosophy about origins: it is this tool, and not the philosophy, that the reliability or suitability of our senses can be used to validate. Scripture does not give science any authority to speak to origins or to a spiritual world that cannot be observed and experimented with in a scientific manner. In these areas Scientists are walking blind: they can only make guesses and change the guesses as new data about our present, physical world comes forward (and they only have a fraction of the data about even that). God's word doesn't change with all these outdated models.

 

[larryjf]

I have seen that a young-earth Creationist belief is rampant in this forum. This saddens me, as I am a staunch theistic evolutionist. Please, can someone tell me why a literary framework interpretation of the first few chapters in Genesis is theologically untenable, or why a literal interpretation is necessary?

Do you believe that death existed before man was created? If so this leads to a theological issue in that death came before the fall.

Since science is basically a system of acquiring knowledge through observation, and since the scientists who observe are tainted by sin, and since the creation that they observe is tainted by sin...why would we look at it as an authority above the Scripture?

Also, when you speak of all of the evidence that supports your position, i don't think you have mentioned any of that evidence, so it's impossible to know if others would consider it solid evidence or if it could be disproved.

 

[caddy]

I'd like to start off by noting that I am apparently starting off on this forum great!

Further, here would be my quick argument for why evolution should be rational to the believer, and it is not a matter of strict presuppositions:
1. The Bible confirms that science and its presuppositions (the existence of an objective, external reality, the accountability of our senses in describing this reality, etc.) are valid.
2. Science confirms that evolution is valid.
3. Bible-believers should believe that evolution is valid.

Now, I'm hoping that, beyond the theological implications of evolution, there shouldn't be any problems with the above argument except for possibly #2.

#2 is pretty significant!

Science does not confirm evolution. The confirmation is built more, or shall I say almost exclusively, on philosophy rather than on science. I think we need to keep in mind that Darwinism is so appealing not because it gives us anything concrete and "scientific" but because it serves human pride: We think we have this thing figured out. I think it was Bahnsen who once stated that autonomy and understanding are mutually exclusive. Unbelieving scientist ( and even some believers ) think we can act independently of God's words. They tell us science confirms this and science confirms that. The facts do not bear # 2's assertion out. Heidi is spot on. We think science can reinterpret scripture. It has no authority over God's words or our lives. It is merely a tool. Many of us have let it have more authority than it should. Science's interpretation of facts is not infallible and we have witnessed were it has oftened erred. I also believe it is a slippery slope to other doctrinal problems that, given time, will begin cropping up.