And yet they are apparently excluding one of the major evangelical views of science and faith, namely young earth creationism.
Whether one agrees with young earth creationism or not, it is undeniable that it is a major contender in the realm of biblical worldviews, and that it has solid answers for pressing questions both of the text of Scripture and of origins.
So why does an evangelical seminary exclude this view in a conference on the topic? Someone please tell me.
Now, I know at the beginning that this post will draw two responses. Some will like it and agree, and others will find me hopelessly out of touch with reality. Almost no one will be in the middle.
But here I go anyway …
The distaste for the biblical teaching on origins is distressing to me. It is completely needless and quite frankly, ridiculous.
Personally, I think it shows the seduction of academic respectability. It is not respectable to be a young earth creationist. So people abandon it, not because the text demands it (it doesn’t), and not because the physical world demands it (it doesn’t either), but because the academy does.
I think “science” as traditionally conceived is the enemy of faith because it tells us that the history of the Bible cannot be trusted. And if the history of the Bible cannot be trusted, why should its religion be trusted?
It boggles my mind that people who believe in the resurrection for which there is absolutely no scientific evidence or proof (only revelation) refuse to believe in the biblical record of creation (for which there is not only revelation, but scientific correlation, meaning that what we see in the world around us through science is completely consistent with the biblical account of six day creationism). At least the liberals of old recognize the problem and abandoned the resurrection through various means. People today apparently do not have the sense to see the contradiction.
There is nothing inherent in science for Bible believers to be afraid of. But those with the bully pulpit were allowed to speak unaddressed, for the most part. As a result, faith no longer rules exegesis; naturalism does.
The Christian faith is not more compelling from an old earth creation viewpoint (in its many incarnations). To borrow from our Savior himself, “If they won’t believe Moses and the prophets, they won’t believe even if one rose form the dead” (Luke 16:31).
People are fond of saying, “Well the Bible doesn’t address scientific issues.” Well, quite frankly, that seems like a silly thing to say. The Bible clearly addresses these issues.
Now, it is true that the Bible is not a scientific textbook. But the next time someone brings that up, ask them for the name of someone, anyone, who believes that the Bible is a scientific textbook. I imagine they won’t be able to come up with one name.
Then ask them why they object to something that no one believes anyway.
Of course the Bible is not a scientific textbook. But where it addresses issues of science, it is accurate.
And while I am here, appealing to genre issues in Genesis 1-3 is inadequate. There is nothing in the text of Genesis 1-3 that would lead one to believe it is any genre other than historical narrative. It is just like the rest of Genesis. So let’s treat it that way.
Simply put, Christianity gains absolutely nothing from abandoning young earth creationism. \
However, they lose the very foundation of the Christian faith—a Creator God to whom we must answer, sin that corrupted the world and brought death, marriage and family, the unity of the human race under the first Adam and second Adam, the reason for the brokenness in the world around us, and the atonement itself just to name a few.
If we don’t trust God to tell us the beginning of the story, then why would we trust him to tell us the end of the story.