This past week, we received a couple of responses (Larry and Daniel) to our posting of ICR’s article, “The Theological Costs of Old-Earth Thinking”, and will address them below.

Larry’s Comments:

Sadly, Dr. Mohler in his article “The Theological Costs of Old-Earth Thinking” from ICR, makes the same mistake that all YEC make:

1) that an old universe mandates a (macro) Darwinian Evolution explanation…this is wholly untrue as even evolutionists know that a universe 14 billion years has nowhere near enough time for their model of natural processes to work…it is the evolutionists view of an eternal universe, until the discovery of the Big Bang, that gave them their supposed validity….which has since crumbled under the weight of a lack of any evidence of repute.

If an old universe does not mandate a macro Darwinian evolutionary theory, then what else is it really based on?  Virtually all of the supposed evidences for an old universe rely, at least in part, on some form of evolutionary theory, whether it be stellar, geological or biological. 

2) that the Bible “teaches” 24hr. creation days…which it doesn’t.  There are certainly some evidences for that supposition in the Bible, but there is significant evidence for long creation days in the Bible…in fact, there seems to be more evidence for that approach.

On the contrary, a literal reading of God’s Word only teaches six 24 hour days of creation.  There is a wealth of articles written to confirm what the Bible says.  Here are a few of them that I strongly recommend:

God’s Covenant With Day And Night

The days of creation: A semantic approach

Six Days? Really?

Hebrew scholar affirms that Genesis means what it says!

In reality, the only way to read any longer period of time into the Creation account is to start with the fallible assumptions of man and bring them to the Bible when we read it.  The bottom line is, who are you going to believe – the omniscient God who created the universe and gave us his Word, or sinful and fallible man whose heart is only evil continually (Gen. 6:5)?

An old earth creation perspective does “not” mean that you have a Darwinian view…quite the contrary.  The vast discoveries in science of the past 100 yrs. “support” the Biblical creation perspective.

Again, it is evident from your statement that you are bringing man’s assumptions of an old earth to the Bible instead of using the Bible to interpret the evidence that science finds.  It comes back to the bottom line as mentioned above.

Sadly, until the YEC’s understand these points, they will continue with their “flat-earth” view of creation.

It is time for YEC to put away the swords, and know that science and faith can be reconciled with the advances in modern science; that is, in God’s General Revelation…and our mutual faith in God’s creation of all things is intact.

First of all, the whole flat-earth issue was a myth originally concocted to discredit biblical creationists.  You can read more about it at:

The flat-earth myth and creationism

Who invented the flat earth?

Secondly, it is not time to put away the sword.  In Ephesians 6:10-20 we are told to put on the whole armor of God to stand up, “against principalities, against powers, and against the worldly governors, the princes of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness, which are in the high places” (v. 12).  As part of that armor we are told in v. 17 to, “take the helmet of Salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”  The only sword we wield is the Word of God and we will continue wield it to defend against compromise from all directions.

Further, I refer you to the Belgic Confession, Article 2.  If we subscribe to the Orthodox Christian teaching of “Dual Revelation”, that is God’s revelation in both His World and His Word, and that properly understood they will never conflict, then we will have no trouble reconciling the two.

It is true that God gave us his General Revelation in nature along with his Special Revelation.  However, you must be aware that the General Revelation of God’s creation has been suffering from 6000 years of the Curse (Romans 8:22).  To use anything that has been ravaged by the Curse for so long to base one’s understanding of God’s Special Revelation upon would be like looking through a glass darkly (1 Cor. 13:12).  What we need to do is to use Special Revelation to help us understand what science tells us about the General Revelation of God’s creation.

Daniel’s Comments:

Daniel – just read your article “Why does the Universe look so old”, do yourself a favor and check out they have an answer for every problem you have with Gen. 1:1, they use the whole Bible to explain everything. Their testimonies tell it all they came to Christ thru their studies of their surrounding and the heavens and of course the Bible and found consistencies with their studies of both the physics of Nature and God’s word promotes these investigations and not blindly shut out His works and laws He put into effect, like evolution, there are two types the evolution where we adopt to our environment which we see in many species and then there is us evolving from Apes, the latter is wrong because their just isnt enough time.  They show how Gods plan for us by placing certain animals at certain times on earth so we at this time can live and enjoy the natural resources we have, and the beauty we see in the Universe, how this all happened and why. I’ve never seen such well informed spirit filled gentleman and I suggest you test what they have to say, does the Bible not say to test everything before you make up your mind, after all that’s why He gave us a mind. I prayed and asked God to reveal his mystery of the universe and He brought these people into my life at a Iron sharpens Iron program in Ct. Do the same and pray before you listen to these Gentleman and ask for Gods help and understanding and see the light come on like it did in me, they cleared up everything that confused me thru our Lord Jesus Christ, and increased my faith tenfold, when you know that you know who God is and His plan for us is revealed thru the bible and other Christians its amazing and heartwarming. Hope you have the same experience, in Christ name I pray.

First of all, I would like to direct Daniel to my responses to Larry above as many of them hold true for the progressive creationism that he refers to.  In addition, I would direct him to the section on Progressive Creationism linked here as there is a plethora of material that actually refutes the arguments they use to justify their compromising the Word of God.

Yes, I have listened and read a great deal of the material from Reasons to Believe and to be honest, I find it disconcerting to see how many people they are affecting with their compromise of Scripture.  I have even had communications with members of their staff and was less than impressed by their responses.  When questioned, they always turned to a scientific explanation first before going to Scripture, rather than the other way around.

Some years ago, I was listening to an interview with Dr. Hugh Ross from Reasons to Believe who said that he basically came to believe in the Bible because of science and what he had learned.  In listening to him further, he admits that he started with the assumptions of billions of years of stellar development (more commonly known as stellar evolution) and that he took those presuppositions with him when he started to read the Bible.  That brings me back to my basic question is who are you going to believe, God or man.  He obviously started with many of man’s assumptions and use them to interpret the Bible, and in most case, his interpretation is subsequently very flawed.  As for myself, I choose to start with God and his Special Revolution and use it to intrepret the universe, not the other way around.

Continue Reading on