Biblical Problems for Young Earth Creationism?

Michael Jones of Inspiring Philosophy has posted a video on what he considers the top 10 reasons from the Bible on why young earth creationism cannot be correct. These are biblical arguments on the error of creationism, not purported scientific errors.

His top 10 problems are:

10. Genesis 17:17. Abraham's age when he was to father Isaac.
9. Genesis 8:5-9. The extent of the Flood.
8. Genesis 2:24. Metaphors in the creation account.
7. Genesis 3:22. Are humans mortal or immortal?
6. Genesis 2:4. Genesis 2 recaps Day 6 of creation.
5. Jeremiah 4:23-26. Jeremiah alludes to creation.
4. Genesis 1:14. Creation of light before the sun.
3. Genesis 1:28. The meaning of subdue and rule.
2. The meaning of bara. It does not mean "create out of nothing".
1. Genesis 1:1. Earth created or modified.

Now Jones is well read on a variety of claims around the early chapters of the Bible, and the Christian appeals to reading the Bible through an Ancient Near East perspective, and a variety of archaeological claims. My concerns are several-fold: he does not appear to be well read on creationism, many of the issues he raises have been discussed for years; he gives too much credence to secular opinions that are often very antagonistic to Scripture; and, while he reads some things in Scripture closely, oftentimes he does not read Scripture closely enough.

Here are my brief responses to these claims and why I think they do not argue against God creating over 6 days a few thousand years ago.

10. Genesis 17:17

The claim is that God told Abraham that he was to father Isaac at age 100 and Abraham is incredulous. Jones thinks that Abraham had no reason to be incredulous because many of his ancestors fathered children over the age of 100 in the recent past, including his own father Terah. Presumably if Abraham's ancestors lived much further in the past, or if the ages given are non-literal then 100 would be too old, but if the genealogies are literal then why is Abraham incredulous?

And God said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. I will bless her, and moreover, I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall become nations; kings of peoples shall come from her.” Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, “Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?” And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before you!” God said, “No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.”

Note carefully what Abraham says: "Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?" Abraham's age is given in the context of his wife's age. Abraham knows he has already had a child at age 86. Sarah even suggested Abraham take her maidservant as a concubine (Gen 16:2) which implies that Sarah thought Abraham was virile enough for this. Abraham is incredulous because of the promise that Abraham will father a son to Sarah. He will become a father with Sarah for the first time at age 100, and her at 90, despite them trying for children for decades. God had promised Abraham that he will father peoples before Abraham left Ur at age 75. God made a covenant with Abraham mentioning posterity when Abraham was possibly in his 80s (Gen 15). So this next promise when Abraham is 99 seems unbelievable. And more importantly, Sarah was not just barren, she was past the age of childbirth. Shortly after his promise to Abraham the Lord appears to Abraham and says

The Lord said, “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife shall have a son.” And Sarah was listening at the tent door behind him. Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years. The way of women had ceased to be with Sarah. So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “After I am worn out, and my lord is old, shall I have pleasure?” The Lord said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Shall I indeed bear a child, now that I am old?’ Is anything too hard for the Lord? At the appointed time I will return to you, about this time next year, and Sarah shall have a son.” But Sarah denied it, saying, “I did not laugh,” for she was afraid. He said, “No, but you did laugh.” (Gen)

"The way of women had ceased to be with Sarah" means that her periods had ceased, Sarah was past menopause. This is why Abraham is incredulous. Yes, Abraham was old and he recognised this (Rom 4:19). But the predominant reason for incredulity is that Abraham and Sarah had tried for years to have children together but Sarah remained barren all that time, and now was past menopause. Could such a thing happen? Sarah conceive? The age of Abraham's ancestors fathering children is far less relevant in his own situation.

9. Genesis 8:5-9

Here it is argued that Genesis talks about the entire earth being covered. This is correct, Scripture is quite adamant on this: the entire earth, even all he mountains under the whole heavens, to 15 cubits.

The flood continued forty days on the earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. (Gen 7:17-20)

This does not seem to Jones to be compatible with the landing of the ark some months later.

God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided. The fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained, and the waters receded from the earth continually. At the end of 150 days the waters had abated, and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen. (Gen 8:1-5)

Then Noah releases a dove which returns

But the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. (Gen 8:9)

So "whole earth" apparently can exclude the tops of the mountains because Noah could see the tops of the mountains after the Ark came to rest on a mountain; and "whole earth" is subsequently mentioned  in Genesis 8:9. The argument is that "whole earth" is hyperbolic in Gen 8:9 and therefore hyperbolic in Genesis 7. Further, because the waters dried from the earth, but there is still water over most of the globe, then "earth" cannot mean the globe.

The problem here is that this reasoning does not follow. Something can be essentially true and still true, or it can be hyperbolic to illustrate a point. But being essentially true is not the same as hyperbolic language.

To use an example, if a school has 984 students and the  principle says he runs a school of a thousand, this is essentially true, though not fully precise. One doesn't get to say that because 1000 is not the same as 984, then the principle is using hyperbolic language and he really only has 18 kids at the school. That's not how language works.

In Genesis the author is using many words to emphasize the extent of the flood. Specifically, the noun "everything" (kol) describes both the earth and under the heavens.

The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains which were under all the heavens were covered. (Gen 7:19 NASB footnote)

The author really does mean the entire earth and goes out of his way to emphasize this. He specifically includes the mountains which give added clarity, and then the mountains are repeated to mention that the water is above them.

The later passages in Genesis 8 then specify that the mountain tops can be seen. We have a picture of the entire earth still covered with water, but which some mountain tops are seen. And the Ark seated on one of the mountains. So the author has again specified the environment carefully but adding the the waters were still over the earth. This is descriptive of the waters still essentially covering the earth, it not at all suggestive of hyperbole.

8. Genesis 2:24

Jones states that this passage has a metaphor and thus is not literal. This argument is a non sequitur. Creationists claim that they take the Bible in its straightforward reading. This often means that we take passages literally, especially historical narrative. The problem with the term "literal" is that it is misconstrued: either by pointing out non-literal passages, as here; or by insisting on hyperliteralistic readings of Scripture.

Genesis 2:24 says that the man and his wife shall become one flesh which is not literal because they are two beings and not one being. Granted, but the extended passage reads

And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

That the man and woman are two beings suggests that "one flesh" here has a more metaphorical meaning. Which is fine as Scripture has many non-literal readings: metaphors, fables, idioms. Even in Genesis chapters 1 through 3.

Interestingly though, even here, the metaphor has an element of literalism. The rib (or the side) refer to a literal part of Adam containing literal flesh and bone. Adam recognises that the woman like him in a way that the animals are not, and that she is made from him. It is not just that she has flesh and bone, as do other animals, but human flesh and bone from Adam. And the meaning of becoming one flesh carries more than the concept of companionship or marriage, it also alludes to coitus. And in coitus we see an act in which the male and the female are becoming one entity, one flesh in as much as it is possible for two creatures to do so. So much so that the act creates new flesh. So, there is an aspect to this metaphor, "one flesh", that is more literal than a standard metaphor (which solely seeks to show a similarity between two distinct items).

7. Genesis 3:22

Creationism states that death came about because of the Fall. Jones is arguing that the requirement to eat from the tree of life means that humans were created mortal, not immortal, thus they would have died had they not eaten from the tree of life.

All this is true enough. The question is: Are humans intrinsically mortal or intrinsically immortal (at least with regards to this life). 

1. Did God create Adam intrinsically immortal such that he would not die? But God caused him to die after he ate the fruit of knowledge. Or;
2. Did God create Adam conditionally immortal such that he would not die if he continued to eat the fruit of life? And then God bared Adam and Eve from the fruit of life so that he would die because he had eaten the fruit of knowledge.

This is an interesting question, and I favour the later of these two explanations: conditional immortality. But I fail to see how either of these options are fatal to creationism. Jones says that death is a possibility before the Fall. But only a theoretical possibility, not an actual possibility. Clearly death came to Adam because he ate the forbidden fruit. God says that Adam will die if he eats the forbidden fruit (Gen 2:17), then God prevents Adam from eating the tree of life so that he will not live forever (Gen 3:22), and Paul says that death came through one man:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. (Rom 5:12-14).

So there is no doubt that death came to Adam after he ate the forbidden fruit. Further, it is clear that the Fall affected creation. God cursed childbirth and work; both became a burden or toilsome. And elsewhere Paul says,

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. (Rom 8:20-22)

Further, I think that Jones gets the dust reference wrong as well. He says that Adam is called dust because dust is an idiom for mortality. Which may well be true, but this ignores what God specifically says,

By the sweat of your face

you shall eat bread,

till you return to the ground,

for out of it you were taken;

for you are dust,

and to dust you shall return. (Gen 3:19)

This is a reference back to God creating Adam from the ground. Jones gets causation precisely backwards here.

6. Genesis 2:4

This verse states,

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

Which is a toledoth. There are 11 of these within Genesis. They introduce subsequent narratives and may represent underlying source documents for Genesis. Jones' claim is that toledoth always introduce what follows the phrase, it does not recap what came earlier. The first problem with this is that Genesis 1 is not introduced by a toledoth. And it is not clear whether Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 was written first. Chronologically Genesis 1 belongs before Genesis 2 but because Genesis 1 does not form part of the toledoth structure of Genesis it is hard to see why the first use of toledoth in Genesis 2 cannot cover material in Genesis 1, whether that be days 6 and 7, or even the entire week.

Secondly, this claim is not correct elsewhere in Genesis. Compare

When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. (Gen 5:2)

And

God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. (Gen 1:27-28)

Also, the toledoth of the sons of Noah (Genesis 10) gives Shem's descendants through Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber then Peleg. The toledoth of Shem (Genesis 11) repeats these 5 generations and then further.

There are two toledoths of Esau (Genesis 36) that largely cover the same material.

The material of Genesis 2 clearly covers Adam being placed in the garden and the creation of Eve which is largely parallel with Day 6 of creation in Genesis 1 and there is no convention that prohibits this. Even Jesus links the creation of man and the marriage of man

Jesus answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female [Gen 1:27], and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh [Gen 2:24]’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Mat 19:4-5)

5. Jeremiah 4:23-26

When prophesying the destruction of Judah Jeremiah uses language that alludes to Genesis 1. The claim is that Jeremiah is metaphorical not literal, therefore Genesis can be metaphorical rather than literal.

The passage in Jeremiah uses several terms from Genesis and it is likely that Genesis 1 influences this prophecy. Though this is hardly unique in Scripture. Frequently authors of Scripture borrow from other passages. There are thousands of quotations and allusions in Scripture to other Scripture.

We need to consider the nature of prophecy, and the nature of historical narrative. Further, Jeremiah is not necessarily metaphorical as opposed to descriptive. To say something is empty and void can be somewhat descriptive. Darkness can be void of light without there being a complete absence of light. There can be a relative absence of men and birds compared to usual. If the town square is empty, it does not need to have no one present at all for this statement to be true. The claim it is metaphor in Jeremiah therefore metaphor in Genesis, is not true. Rather Jeremiah is using the concept of reversing creation to describe judgment. His language may be metaphorical, though it may be descriptive in a more literal sense, or both.

But a greater principle is that history can be used allegorically without denying history. Jesus is our Passover lamb and there really were actual Passovers with actual lamb slaughters even though Jesus was not literally ovine. Even in this passage Jeremiah calls for men to circumcise themselves and remove the foreskin of their hearts (Jer 4:4). Jeremiah is applying a metaphor to the Jews, but this in no way calls into question that Abraham and his household were literally circumcised.

4. Genesis 1:14:19

God made the sun and moon on Day 4 and appointed them to rule over the day and the night. It has been argued by creationists that God can make light on Day 1 without the sun and all that is needed is a light source to provide day and night to earth. This is correct. Jones addresses a peculiar argument about how the sun was made from gathered light. I do not intend to address this as these are speculative ideas that are worth pursuing but, if incorrect, do not argue against creationism.

Interestingly, Jones dismisses creationist claims on how the sun was made, but then skips the "made" aspect and offers his interpretation that the sun and moon were merely appointed as rulers. Yet, the passage both specifies that God made the sun and moon and that he appointed them rulers. That the sun and moon are appointed as rulers is fully consistent with creationism.

3. Genesis 1:28

The argument against creationism concerns the meaning of the words for "subdue" and "rule". Creationists argue that the earth was good before the Fall and there was no death of humans or animals. Jones says that the command to subdue and have dominion over the earth and all the animals means that the world was a wild place that needed to be brought under control. Further, that this command gave humans the right to use animals as they pleased including for food and clothing.

This passage and following verses say,

God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (Gen 1:24-31)

It is worth noting that the passage itself tells us what God intends. God specifically states that plants are food for man and animals. Thus an argument that claims an intrinsic meaning for a word, and then what that meaning might imply, and then that this implication means something contradicting the very passage in which it occurs, is false on the face of it. It is a convoluted argument that overinterprets and misinterprets. Word studies are fine, but this illustrates how they should not be done. Even if the word "to have dominion" could be interpreted to include using an animal for food in certain contexts, it clearly does not mean this in this context where it says that plants are for food.

But do these words have only negative connotations? A word can have an intrinsically positive or negative connotation, or it could be relatively neutral with the context being positive or negative. Further, over time a neutral word can gain a positive or negative connotation if it is predominantly used in only positive or negative contexts.

"Subdue" is the Hebrew kabash which basically means "to place under". It occurs 14 times in the Old Testament. It is used concerning people or land (meaning the people of the land) in the majority of occurrences. Any context describing the subduing of people is going to have a somewhat negative connotation as the people are not subdued prior to becoming subdued. Nevertheless, the use of "subdue" need not imply that the land or animals are not good. Nor that it is inappropriate to put things under man's power that are supposed to be there. Further, something can be good and still be improved upon.

To "rule" or "have dominion" is the Hebrew radah having the meaning "to rule". It occurs 22 times in the Old Testament. It does not intrinsically mean "rule harshly". There are a couple of passages in Scripture where it as a neutral meaning. Leviticus (25:43; 46; 53) warns men against ruling (radah) ruthlessly; this implies one can rule kindly. Solomon is said to rule in several passages (1Ki 4:24; Psa 72:8) and Solomon was noted to have a peaceful kingdom. Solomon's chief officers ruled over the workers (1Ki 5:16; 9:23; 2Ch 8:10) and there is no hint that they were harsh. Benjamin is a ruler (Psa 68:27) and it is noted that his tribe is little, not descriptive of harsh ruling at all. The claim that this word (radah) implies injustice or oppression is just not true. 

What does the Genesis passage say? That man is the culmination of God's creation and that we are to rule over the earth. We are made kings of the realm.

The meaning of bara

Does the Hebrew "bara" intrinsically mean creation out of nothing? Jones argues no and many creationists agree with him. The word bara occurs 48 times in the Old Testament. It appears to only occur with God as the subject. It is frequently used (if not always) for God making something that did not previously exist, whether out of something that exists or out of nothing (ex nihilo).

(Jones reference to David eating is a different Hebrew word that sounds similar: "barah".)

But "bara" can refer to creating out of nothing depending on the context. So the issue is what does it mean in Genesis 1? And the context of Genesis 1, especially Genesis 1:1 suggests creation out of nothing.

Genesis 1:1

The first few verses of the Bible read,

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. (Gen 1:1-2)

Jones proposes that a better translation starts,

When God created the heavens and the earth the earth was formless and void,...

I do not have the knowledge of Hebrew to address this issue. It is worth noting that there is a long history of translating the first verse: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." In fact, a large number of English translations do not differ at all (save minor variability of "heaven" versus "heavens"): KJV, ASV, ESV, RSV, NIV, NASB, NKJV, NET, JB, HCSB, NLT. So one should really treat this as speculative (unless there is a strong argument otherwise).

But even if (for the sake of the argument) we allow for an ancient heavens and/or earth, we still have nothing on the earth. There is no vegetation, no animals, no birds, no humans. An ancient earth without flora and fauna does not achieve what it proponents want.

Summary

Several of Jones' claims are incorrect. Some of them rely on a specific creationist claim that he has come across but which is not necessarily intrinsic to creationism and, if false, says nothing about the creationist worldview.

Yet there are bigger issues here. One is the reliance on the ancient near eastern (ANE) perspective that has gained ground. Of course, there is nothing wrong with better understanding the thought processes of the ancients, but they do not have priority. Much can be gained by reading the Old Testament and seeing how the narrative unfolds. And the common practice of placing the Old Testament alongside ANE texts but often subtly underneath them, is somewhat reminiscent of the previous practice of comparing Luke with Josephus and assuming Luke is errant when they differ. There are many reasons to assume that the Old Testament has priority over both ANE texts and modernist claims for ANE worldviews.

Further, Jones added this comment to his video,

Let's remember YECs constantly claim theistic evolutionists have to add meaning to the Biblical texts, and they just take the plain reading. Well, in order to deal with the issues I brought up in the video they will have to add meaning to several of the passages I went over.

But this is not what creationists are arguing. Of course we need context. We can't even interpret the Bible if we don't know how to read or speak a language. And the better we understand the meaning of words and textual context, and the cultural context, and allusions to other Scripture, the better we can read the Bible. 

In the video Jones confuses imprecision with hyperbole; makes a word imply the exact opposite of what the text clearly states; uses non sequiturs; references books that make claims that are likely false. The Bible is not unclear in many places. It can be read in a relatively straightforward manner. That often means literal. Not everything is literal, but you don't get to turn factual statements into metaphor at will. Many difficult passages are known to be difficult. Readers can identify difficult passages readily. But there are clearer passages and there are less clear passages, and we don't get to reinterpret the perspicacious with the obscure.

The process of hermeneutics clarifies the apparent meaning, it may modify it, it seldom reverses it. And if it does, then this has to be demonstrated very carefully and rigorously.

Are Genesis chapters 1 and 2 separate creation accounts?

Some people raise issues with the supposed incongruence of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 saying that the chapters represent different creation accounts. There are several reasons that show that Genesis 2 is complimentary not contradictory to Genesis 1.

The two chapters do show some stylistic differences. The first chapter is highly structured, uses repetitive motifs, and functions as introduction to the book of Genesis. But stylistic differences need not mean differences in content.

There are several reasons to note the continuity of chapter 2, and the rest of Genesis, to chapter 1. The first and most obvious is that we have received Genesis as a unit. If the author (or compiler) of Genesis wrote Genesis 2 after Genesis 1, which he did, then he knew what was contained in both. It would seem strange that moderns can identify significant differences that he supposedly did not notice.

Secondly, Genesis 1 describes creation repeatedly as good, and after the completion of all of creation as very good. This motif of "good" throughout Genesis 1 is then contrasted with the man's lack of companion which is not good.

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” (Gen 2:18)

To propose a different creation account in Genesis 2 disregards the author's obvious contrast.

Next, Genesis 5 gives the chronology of the antediluvian patriarchs. It begins,

This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. (Gen 5:1-3)

This directly quotes Genesis 1

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them. (Gen 1:26-27)

Thus the command to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28) describes the beginnings of its fulfillment in chapter 5 and the author repeats the earlier text when naming the descendants of Adam. Genesis 5 has obvious continuity with Genesis 2, yet the phraseology also borrows from Genesis 1.

Further, Jesus reads Genesis 1 and 2 together. He does this when refuting the Pharisees on divorce.

Jesus answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, [Gen 1:27] and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh [Gen 2:24]’?" 

The unity of Genesis as a book, the contrast of good with not good, the connection between genealogy and creation, and the unifying approach of Jesus to both chapters, show that it is preferable to read Genesis 2 as an expansion of the Genesis 1 creation account rather than as a different, contrasting creation account.

The dark side of young earth creationism

This comic was shared as a reason to reject creationism. Old Earth Ministries (OEM) exists,

to help the church understand they are following a false teaching, and abandon young earth creationism in favor of accepting the scientific truth that our world is billions of years old. 

The comic presents claims by a creationist which are refuted by an Old Earth advocate. The setup is an enthusiastic but naive and ignorant creationist who repeats creationist teaching and is refuted by an knowledgeable and calm rationalist. The creationist is increasingly angry until he becomes an apostate.

The rhetorical effect is one of creationism being both false and dangerous regardless of whether the actual arguments contained in the comic have any merit. But it must be remembered that falsehood is falsehood regardless of whether or not you keep your cool (or, as often the case, you are actually passive aggressive). Man's anger is to be avoided but so is sowing discord among brothers. You don't get a free pass from God by avoiding wrath if you still bear false witness. Character matters, but so does truth.

The claims of the tract are as follows

1. Scientific theories by creationists are not science but propaganda. Creationism is not scientific
2. Creationism is not taught in the Bible.
3. The Hebrew word "yom" means any time frame, not a normal day.
4. The earth bringing forth fruit is not God doing a miracle thus the time must be longer than a day.
5. Numbering "day" does not make it literal.
6. Putting "evening and morning" does not make it literal.
7. God referring to creating in 6 days and resting on one is not literal because we have other Sabbath patterns.
8. The sun was not created on day 4 it appeared.
9. Human death did not exist before the Fall, but animal death did.
10. If the world is no longer very good then Romans 1:20 cannot be true.
11. God cannot give us meat if carnivory comes from sin.
12. God fixes laws so creation cannot change.
13. If creation changed with Adam then the gospel is diminished.
14. Creationism stared with John Milton's Paradise Lost.
15. Creationism is dangerous because when Christians come to understand it is false they abandon Christianity.

14 of these claims are definitely false. And #9 probably is.

Creationists have written on all of them in detail. My summary will be brief. But it is worth mentioning a common feature through the comic. Creationists believe what they do because they read the Bible in a straightforward manner. They are what many would describe as literalists. Creationists take many of the statements in Genesis as narrative and historical. Though they do not think every verse in the Bible is literal. Creationists allow for a range of genres including fable, poetry, and apocalyptic. They recognise grammatical features such as hyperbole, generalisation, rhetoric, etc. What is problematic in the protagonist is that he refutes plain readings of Scripture by giving hyper-literal meanings to other passages. Including appealing to more poetical passages.

To the arguments.

Scientific theories by creationists are not science but propaganda. Creationism is not scientific.

Except that creationism is applying the scientific method to the world around us using different presuppositions. We assume that history is correct as recorded in the Bible and apply that to the world. The presuppositions of Evolutionists are just that. The evidence is the same, but we read it through different perspectives. And it matters what those perspectives are.

As an aside, much of what is called science is actually history. And the historical story of evolution is far more history than it is science. Forensic science is legitimate, but it is not operational science and should not be confused with it.

Creationism is not taught in the Bible.

It depends a little on what is meant here, but the idea that the world is currently ~6000 years old has a long history. It seems ridiculous that an idea that many men have concluded from Scripture over millennia is not suggested by Genesis. Now these interpreters could be mistaken, but only if you claim a straightforward reading is mistaken. This is a little ingenuous. You really have to show why this interpretation is incorrect rather than stating it is absent from the text. 

The Hebrew word "yom" means any time frame, not a normal day.

This is just plain false. It can mean a time frame longer than a usual day, much like the English word. But it has usual meaning and less common meanings. And its meaning without any contextual qualifiers is that of a normal length day.


The earth bringing forth fruit is not God doing a miracle thus the time must be longer than a day.

The logic seems to be that God told the earth to bring forth fruit thus the length of the day must include that time that it takes for a fruit tree to grow fruit. This is utter nonsense. The idea that this is not a miracle because it is indirect is folly. Further, the same is said about the earth bringing forth animals and yet the earth does not normally do this directly or indirectly. Also, it is unlikely that the passage even says this. The earth is to bring forth trees which bear fruit.

God said, “Let the earth produce green plants that will bear seed—fruit trees bearing fruit in which there is seed—according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. And the earth brought forth green plants bearing seed according to its kind, and trees bearing fruit in which there was seed according to its kind.

Numbering "day" does not make it literal.

Except that it does. Hosea 6:2 is not an exception.

He will revive us after two days;
on the third day he will raise us up,
that we may live in his presence.

Even if this means a short time (rather than 2 and 3 days), it means this by virtue of a symbolic comparison. The literalness of the 2 and 3 days is needed so that there can be a figurative understanding of a short time. If "day" does not mean a literal day here, then where is the meaning of a short time? If the passage could mean 2 aeons and 3 aeons then the implied meaning is this will happen after an extremely long time.


Putting "evening and morning" does not make it literal.

This is an interesting argument because creationists do not say that evening and morning mean a 24-hour period (though it often does), rather they argue that the association of evening and morning with the term day makes the day literal. So the example of Psalm 90 is irrelevant. The use of evening and morning here is meant to imply a short time. Again, like in Hosea, it is this literal meaning which shows the Psalmist is claiming how short things are. Grass blossoms and withers in a day, meaning quickly. Similarly men, in God's sight, have short lives.

God referring to creating in 6 days and resting on one is not literal because we have other Sabbath patterns.

This gets things back to front. The example of the creation is an example for men to follow. It is a direct comparison. God did this and you do the same. God created in 6 days and rested on the 7th day therefore you are to work for 6 days and rest on one day. In Exodus the term "day" appears in the command and the example of God. Other Sabbaths such as Sabbaths of years are modeled on the week. There is not comparison of God working for 6 years. Rather the example of 6 on 1 off is the Sabbatical type. (And there is no Sabbath of months.)

The sun was not created on day 4 it appeared.

There can be a difference between "create" [bara] and "make" [asah] but one must be careful not to overly distinguish synonyms. It could mean appoint. It is questionable that the sun existed before this, although the parenthetical comment about making the stars could mean they were made either then or had been made earlier. One should be cautious about getting an exact chronology from Job. As mentioned the stars could have antedated the sun. Either way, "stars" in Job 38:7 is likely to poetically refer to angels.

Human death did not exist before the Fall, but animal death did.

It depends a little on what is meant by "animal." Humans did not die before the Fall. Prior to the Fall Adam and Eve had access to the Tree of Life and death was a result of the Fall. Humans were to eat plants. The fact that God also gave plants to the animals and birds is highly suggestive that carnivory is a result of the Fall. God can then provide for animals if they subsequently become carnivorous. He gave men meat after the Flood and yet we still see God's hand in this provision.

If the world is no longer very good then Romans 1:20 cannot be true.

For from the creation of the world, [God's] invisible attributes, both his eternal power and deity, are discerned clearly, being understood in the things created, so that they are without excuse.

This claim seems a little odd. If the world is no longer very good (because of the Fall and animals eating other animals), then why would this passage not be true? We can see these attributes of God in the world even if it is broken. Why do we need a perfect created world to see God's handiwork?

God cannot give us meat if carnivory comes from sin.

The argument seems to be that if God gives us something then it must be good. If it is good then it cannot be a result of the Fall which came from sin. But this seems like an unusual argument as we know God gave us meat after the Flood and we know that God only gave plants before the Fall. Carnivory was something that occurred after creation. It was not how things were set up when God made humans. So it must have occurred for a reason.

The protagonist argues that carnivory cannot be due to sin because God gives us meat, but God can bring about good from evil. There are many examples in Scripture where something good comes from evil: Joseph and his brothers, Hosea and his wife, water from a rock, salvation through the murder of Jesus.

God fixes laws so creation cannot change.

Thus says the Lord: "If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed order of heaven and earth, then I will reject the offspring of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his offspring to rule over the offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them."

This says nothing about whether creation can change as a result of the Fall. And we know that it did because Paul tells us:

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.

If creation changed with Adam then the gospel is diminished.

This takes us away from creationism into whether God foreknew or caused the Fall. Regardless, the Fall occurred and God promised a redeemer in the curse. The idea that a plan B diminishes anything for God is not borne out in Scripture. It is frequently the case that God does even greater things when we fail.

Creationism stared with John Milton's Paradise Lost.

Mention is made of Milton and 4 other creationists. Milton wrote Paradise Lost in 1667 and 1674. It is almost certain that any concepts related to creationism reflected not only his beliefs but those of Christians during that time. No mention is made of many other creationists such as Kepler (1571–1630) or Newton (1642–1727). Creationism clearly antedates Paradise Lost.

Creationism is dangerous because when Christians come to understand it is false they abandon Christianity.

There are several reasons to question this. Firstly, there are a large number of beliefs which are held by a variety of Christians around the world. Many who change what they think about a particular doctrine do not abandon the faith. Most of us have modified at least one aspect of what we think about various Christian doctrines. Do we all abandon the faith every time we modify a belief?

Secondly, it is the experience of many creationists that Christians who have abandoned evolution they were taught and embraced a creationist understanding of Genesis and the Bible are even more enthusiastic about he things of God. It was the theory of evolution that hamstrung their faith.

Thirdly, what are we to say of other Christian beliefs that act as a stumbling block? Professed Christians abandon Christianity claiming that they have come to realise one of their beliefs is wrong. Do we deny the virgin birth, the coming of Jesus in the flesh, the love of God, because if someone abandons this belief they could end up abandoning Christianity? The truth is that people abandon Christianity for a range of reasons, not all because of struggles with doctrine. Even so, someone who wishes to walk away will often blame a belief he struggles with. (This may even be the case when the real reason is that he struggles with a sin that he does not wish to abandon.)

Regardless, it is important to believe the truth. If creationism in true then it is better to teach it in the church and better for Christians to hold this doctrine. Irrespective of what happens to men who abandon a true doctrine, we are better to think rightly about the world, the Bible, and God.

Conclusion

I find it interesting that creationism is portrayed as dangerous in this cartoon. It seems to me that the author rejects a straightforward reading of Genesis but in doing so he reveals that he does not understand the rest of Scripture that he brings to his defense.

Starlight and time

One of the most frequent examples criticising creationism that I encounter is the starlight problem and the age of the earth. Perhaps this is somewhat understandable in that the problem is relatively well understood, and is a real problem. These same people are not often critical of the horizon problem, which, again may be understandable because the horizon problem is not known about by many and not quite so easily understood. Nevertheless, both problems: distant starlight and a young earth; and the horizon problem; are starlight problems.

The starlight problem is this: God can create with an appearance of age, but most suggest that it would be at the level of what is required for a mature creation. So God creating several different types of rock as a foundation for the earth is reasonable even if that may appear to some to be a feature of age. But to claim that fossils of animals within rocks were created in the position to make it appear like they were buried despite never existing seems non-congruent with God’s nature. Most creationists, and most people, think fossils represent real animals.

Now God also created stars and they are a long way away. Adam would not have seen them until the light travelled here from the star. Now God could have created the light in transit which I think is fits with necessity of appearance of age. God made the stars for a purpose which involves seeing the star so creating the star and the starlight at the same time may be necessary. The problem with created light is that this light carries information. It carries information about what each star is made from, how fast it spins, when it becomes brighter (nova), and when it explodes (supernova), etc. Now I happen to think that the first 2 of these pieces of “information” (composition and spin) are legitimate to put into created light in transit, they represent the star as it is. But putting in information for the star’s destruction if it never happened seems a little like creating fossils of animals that never existed. Thus creationists think that supernova represent true star destruction. And supernovas more than 6000 light-years away should not be visible in a world only 6000 years old.

So the problem is: how did the light get from the star to earth in so short a period? How did light from a star more than 6000 light-years away get to earth in less than 6000 years? Now this is a real problem. Nevertheless, the stellar evolutionists have exactly the same kind of problem: the horizon problem.

The temperature of space is uniform and there is not enough time for light to have travelled across space to equalise temperatures, even after billions of years. This is well recognised by evolutionists and is called the “horizon problem.” The temperature of space in all directions is much more symmetrical than it should be.

Before we propose any solutions to these problems, what is extremely important to note is that both creation theory and stellar evolutionary theory have a light-travel time problem. So even if we do not know what the solution is, it is logically invalid to dismiss creationism because of the light-travel problem in favour of evolution when it has exactly the same problem. Goose and gander and all.

As it so happens, solutions are proposed by both schools. One may favour one over another, but if your proposed solution has no scientific validation, it is tenuous to use the solution as proof of the truth of your theory. All you can do is claim you have rescued your theory.

The main solution of evolutionists for the light transit problem is the inflationary big bang model.

Creationists have proposed

• c decay
• white hole cosmology
• Carmeli cosmology

While c decay (slowing of the speed of light) is out of favour with most creationists, I have some time for it.

Genesis: poetry or prose?

Some weeks back I mentioned a comment that Michael Gungor made in an interview,

But now that I am a songwriter, I see this whole thing as absolutely absurd. Genesis is a poem if I’ve ever seen one.

So because he is a songwriter and therefore writes poems to music, he claims this authority for recognising poems including in other languages and culture. The problem is that other poets as well as authorities on Hebrew literature disagree with him.

Hebrew poetry is predominantly marked by parallelism: both synonymous and antithetic parallelism. Phrases are repeated or contrasted for emphasis. A synonymous parallelism from Proverbs 9

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,/
and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.

An antithetical one from Proverbs 20

Love not sleep, lest you come to poverty;/
open your eyes, and you will have plenty of bread.

A more complex parallelism from Psalm 1 using both forms

Blessed is the man/
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,/
nor stands in the way of sinners,/
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;/
but his delight is in the law of the Lord,/
and on his law he meditates day and night.

A second feature is acrostics used in some poems such as Psalms 34, 111, 112, and Lamentations.

A third feature is the predominance of certain verb forms. Stephen Boyd notes that there are 4 finite verbs forms in Hebrew and that narrative uses the preterite verb form as its predominant finite verb form. Classifying narrative and poetry by other features in non-disputed texts shows that on average narrative uses the preterite form for ~50% (range ~20%–80%) of its finite verbs and poetry uses the preterite ~4% (range ~0%–20%).

It is worth mentioning that chiasm is a feature of Hebrew writing. It is an overarching structure somewhat resembling parallelism and is used frequently in narrative.

Genesis as a whole is hardly a poem though it contains poetry. Perhaps Gungor was implying the early chapters of Genesis were poetry (given the context of the interview)? No English translation lays out the whole of Genesis 1–3 as poetry. The New International Version does structure Genesis 1 in list format but it does not use its list format for poetry; rather for inventory in narrative. Other translations use a narrative layout.

Genesis 1–3 does not consist of parallelism thru-out, though it contains short parallelisms in the poetical passages included within, such as

So God created man in his own image,/
in the image of God he created him;/
male and female he created them.

Genesis 1–3 does not use acrostic.

And Genesis 1 uses the preterite form for 66% of its finite verbs.

Lastly, the unstated implication seems to be that poetical statements are not true, or at least that poetry is symbolic or metaphorical and not literal. Even though metaphor is frequently a feature of poetry, poetry can be literal and metaphor can be a feature of prose. The song of Miriam in Exodus 15 relates the delivery of the Israelites from the Egyptians and recounts the earlier narrative; it is supposed to be understood relatively literally. Jotham's fable of the trees in Judges 9 is narrative yet it is supposed to be understood figuratively. The context of the passage and not just the style of writing is important for interpretation.

Genesis 1–3 is historical narrative and is not poetry.

Michael Gungor and what Christians believe

I have seen a couple of comments about Michael Gungor recently. I have never heard of the guy or his music. He made a comment in his blog earlier this year that is apparently controversial,

I have no more ability to believe, for example, that the first people on earth were a couple named Adam and Eve that lived 6,000 years ago. I have no ability to believe that there was a flood that covered all the highest mountains of the world only 4,000 years ago and that all of the animal species that exist today are here because they were carried on an ark and then somehow walked or flew all around the world from a mountain in the middle east after the water dried up. I have no more ability to believe these things than I do to believe in Santa Clause or to not believe in gravity. But I have a choice on what to do with these unbeliefs. I could either throw out those stories as lies, or I could try to find some value in them as stories.

Now the context is that he doesn't think he can choose his beliefs, which I disagree with, but is important to understand this paragraph.

In places he sounds like someone leaving a hyper-literalist background,

So if up and down aren’t real, then what do we mean by God being “up” in Heaven? And why do so many worship leaders stare at the lights of the sanctuary and reach their hands into the sky as though trying to reach somebody “up” there? Up where? Towards which planet? Which galaxy? Because if it’s in some direction that we are supposed to think about God, that direction would be constantly changing. Sometimes the congregation should be gazing down and to the right or reaching their hands straight out behind them.

Though elsewhere he makes some reasonable comments,

Give me the samaritan. The heretic. The outsider who may have the ‘wrong’ ‘beliefs’ in words and concepts but actually lives out the right beliefs by stopping and helping me. That’s the kind of belief I’m interested in at this point.

There is much that one could comment on in this post, I'll address one: moving away from orthodox belief is often a dangerous sign.

In the orthodoxy-orthopraxy debate the upper-hand probably goes to orthopraxy. God calls us to obedience. As much as I desire and enjoy defending the truth, our faith needs boots. We need to do the things Jesus did and love like he did which means love in action.

And even though his comments are being labelled controversial, many Christians think the world is billions of years older than 6000 years, some of these people even subscribe to the general theory of evolution. Such beliefs (while incorrect) do not keep them outside the kingdom. I know many Christians that hold to one or both of those beliefs and who are more godly than me.

Now that I have defended orthopraxy and acknowledged godly Christians with heterodox beliefs, let me say that any move away from orthodoxy needs to be watched closely. This is partly because Christianity is a centred set: over time we should become more like Christ in our beliefs and behaviour.

It is the case that some abandon true beliefs without abandoning Christianity: some Christian evolutionists become creationists and some creationists become evolutionists yet only one of those positions is correct. Similar could be said about other doctrines such as paedobaptism and credobaptism. But in general, if we are truly following Jesus we should become more and more like him. Thus abandonment of true beliefs may be the beginning of one leaving the kingdom.

Right beliefs over time often lead to right actions. We may not desire such actions, we may do them out of duty and only come to love them with the practice of obedience; nevertheless, believing the truth is more likely to lead to right behaviour than believing falsehood. If we want to do what is right then we tend to do what we think is right. On balance, heterodox belief is more likely to lead to heteropraxy than orthopraxy. So while orthopraxy may be preferable to orthodoxy if one is to choose, when one abandons orthodoxy how long is it before one's behaviour is no longer the orthopraxy that is being lauded? And how long before one is justifying heterodoxy?

Progressive Christians are fond of reminding conservatives to love sinners outside the church. This is indeed true and they are right to do so—though they often are slow to offer such love to those that they disagree with within the church. Note also that addressing heathen sin is not intrinsically hateful. But I often observe that such a pathway that starts with denying orthodoxy and approving heterodoxy—because what matters is right behaviour—ends up approving wrong behaviour.

Gungor finishes with an appeal to James 2,

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

What we are seeing here is not the man with works addressing the man with faith—orthopraxy versus orthodoxy—rather the man with faith and works addressing the man claiming to have faith. Jesus, after all, did show the Samaritans the living water and Rahab abandoned idolatry to worship the Lord.

But what actually piqued my interest; the statement that I wished to address, was a comment Gungor made in response to all this controversy,

But now that I am a songwriter, I see this whole thing as absolutely absurd. Genesis is a poem if I’ve ever seen one.

Which I will write about anon.

Defining terms and assuming the argument

I have written on choice of terms in framing a debate previously. Here are 2 further examples.

Calvinists use the term "doctrines of grace" to refer to Calvinism. They may think that they are stronger on grace though I dispute this. Such nomenclature is unhelpful and clouds the argument. This is because although "doctrine of grace" has a specific meaning it sounds like a belief in grace as opposed to, say, works. Yet Christian theology generally is a theology of grace and not works, or at least claims to be. (Others have suggested that a better term may be "doctrines of irresistible grace").

An example from a position I hold may be helpful. I hold to Young Earth Creationism (YEC). This term is a little unwieldy (and 6000 years is hardly young). Young Earth Creationists (YECs) have suggested the term "biblical creationism". Now I happen to think YEC is more biblical than the alternatives but that is kind of beside the point. "Biblical creationism" is needlessly disparaging when trying to debate what the Bible teaches. Non YECs may claim that their position is variably biblical.

Use terms that are moderately accurate, and don't use terms that assume you argument: don't beg the question.

Did Adam name all the animals in 1 day?

An argument against God creating the universe in 6 six days revolves around the creation of man on the 6th day and the tasks assigned to him. Here is an example I came across some time ago, though similar arguments have been made countless times.

Andrews itemises 12 events which he thinks would take too long to accomplish in a mere 24 hours; though it should really be in 12 hours.

1. God creates the various living creatures along with wild animals and animals that become domesticated [nephesh/soulish creatures] (Genesis 1:24-25).
2. God creates Adam in the divine image (Genesis 1:26-27; 2:7).
3. God gives Adam a mandate of dominion over creation (Genesis 1:28).
4. God makes the plants available as a food source for man (Genesis 1:29-30).
5. God plants a garden and puts the man in it (Genesis 2:8).
6. God gives Adam instruction concerning obedience to God’s specific commands (Genesis 2:9, 16-17).
7. God commissions Adam to cultivate the garden (Genesis 2:15).
8. God commissions Adam to name or classify the animals (Genesis 2:19-20).
9. God declares Adam’s need for a suitable helper (Gen. 2:18, 20).
10. God induces sleep and performs surgery on Adam (Genesis 2:21).
11. God creates Eve (Genesis 2:22).
12. God ordains that Adam and Eve enter into a divinely constituted marriage relationship (Genesis 2:23-25).

Adequate responses are given in the comments. I would like to reiterate them and add some further perspectives.

These tasks can be categorised three-fold: God's activities; God's interaction with man; and Adam's tasks. Using the above roughly chronological scheme we can group the items

• God: #1, #2, #4, #5, #10, #11.
• God and man: #3, #6, #7, #9, #12.
• Adam: #8.

One could quibble over the grouping, is #9 God or God and man?, but they are generally correct.

The reason for my grouping them is that the various activities are limited by man and not God. So all the items that God did alone, half of the 12, could take less than a second combined. That said, I have no problem with God sculpting Adam from clay then Eve from Adam over a short period of time.

God's interactions with man take time because man is finite. The 5 items listed would take a measurable amount of time, but as they are all commands they need not take much time at all: a few minutes. And #3, #6, and #7 (along with #8) may be all part of one conversation.

Thus, despite a list of 12 items it really boils down to one: Adam naming the animals.

Before addressing Adam's task I would like to identify a concern in Andrews' modification of the text. For item #1 he writes about the animals that become domesticated. Now it is true that animals have become domesticated since creation (dogs) and James 3:7 confirms this, however Genesis does not say this. Domestic livestock were created that way

And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:24-25)

See also when God creates man he gives them dominion over the livestock (Genesis 1:26).

For item #8 Adam is supposedly told to name or classify the animals. Genesis does not say that Adam is to classify the animals (which has connotations of taxonomy), Adam is told to name the animals; the same way that Adam names the woman (Genesis 2) and God names the day, the sky, the land, etc (Genesis 1).

Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call (qara') them. And whatever the man called (qara') every living creature, that was its name (shem). The man gave names (shem) to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field.

...Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called (qara') Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.” (Genesis 2:19-20, 23)

Domestic animals (livestock) existed from creation and Adam is told to name, not classify, the animals.

Is this task feasible in a day? Most certainly. The naming of the animals is closely tied to the dominion mandate. Humans are made in the image of God which includes rulership.

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Genesis 1:26-28)

God brought the animals to Adam and we are told he names 3 categories of animals (Genesis 2:20):

1. Livestock
2. Birds of the heavens
3. Beasts of the field

This is a highly restricted set of the earth's fauna.

Andrews points to Whitcomb and Morris stating in The Genesis Flood that there were 30,000 species of land animals at the time of the Noadic Deluge. I make no claims for the accuracy of that particular figure, but it is only partially relevant. Speciation between creation and the flood expanded those numbers significantly. Even so, Adam was naming a limited number of land animals. He wasn't naming the animals that creep on the ground, a category that exceeds the livestock, birds, and beasts combined. Returnig to speciation: Adam was naming cats, not all the types of cats we now have that descended from these first animals such as lions, tigers and lynx; and bears, not polar bears, brown bears, and black bears; and oxen, not bison, water buffalo, and yak.

As to the time Adam took to name them, he need not take much time at all: a few seconds, if that. The point of naming relates to the dominion mandate not to obtain a degree in taxonomy. Adam (and Eve and their descendants) were to rule over the world including its fauna, that is the point of Adam naming them. In bringing the animals to Adam it also appears that God wished Adam to note that the animals had companions but Adam did not. The activity of naming served to consolidate Adam's dominion mandate and his aloneness.

There was plenty of time for the activities of the 6th day of creation. The only activity that took significant time was the naming of the animals. A close reading of the text reveals this to be a limited number of animals for a specific reason that need not have taken much time at all.

Dinosaur bones dated with carbon-14

This escaped my notice at the time (2012 August). We should definitely carbon date more fossils and ignore calls that this is a waste of time because we already know that fossils cannot contain carbon-14 except as a contaminant.

Coal and diamonds both contain radioactive carbon despite supposedly being too old. The half-life of carbon-14 is 5730 years. So after 5700 years there is half the original amount of carbon-14 left. After 11500 years a quarter of the original amount. If we assume all the carbon in an object is carbon-14 (it is however only a fraction) we can get an extreme upper bound on how old it can be (carbon-14 decays into nitrogen so the known presence of carbon-12 lowers this upper bound considerably). If we measure any carbon-14 we know it must be younger than the extreme upper bound age, though it could be much younger.

So carbon-14 has been found in

1. Coal
2. Diamonds
3. Dinosaurs

All of which are claimed to be older than what they possibly can be. This refutes the argument for an ancient earth. The only response possible is contamination.

Species and speciation

Evolution claims common descent, that is all life forms are related to each other via a common ancestor. Every living thing shares a granddad—if we go back far enough, or put more scientifically, universal common ancestry.

The alternative is known as fixity of the species, species don't change. Of course species do change, every offspring is different to its parents. On a population level gene frequencies change and mutations arise. So fixity of the species cannot mean change does not occur, rather that it is limited. So how does one define species?

Unfortunately the number of definitions is somewhat large, and much depends on what you want your definition to do. If you favour evolution, then definitions more in line with the theory may be favoured. A creationist could do the same.

From a creationist perspective I would favour the definition of species to be that of the fundamental types of plants and animals God created to breed with each other. A tree with fruit producing seed after its kind (Genesis 1:12). Beasts after their kind (Genesis 1:25). This is the basis of baraminology.

How do we work this out in practice? Some of the animals extant are different in some ways from their likely forebears, though many bear striking resemblance!

Linnaeus was onto something. Unfortunately it seems his species and even genus categories were not broad enough. We do not have fixity of the species if we use the Linnaean taxonomy.

If we start with created kinds that can breed, changes over time may limit reproduction. For example changes in body size, or timing of fertility, or cellular incompatibility may preclude breeding. These changes may come about by genetic changes such as allelic loss, mutation, targeted adaptability, chromosomal rearrangement. So while I dispute a species definition based on isolated reproductive populations, such populations may in fact be unable to breed when reintroduced to each other.

It seems likely that the various feline species descended from a pair (or group) of cats with great capacity for variation. The same with cattle, dogs, bears, and so on. Such variation can be seen in the size difference between a lion and a domestic cat, and the coat differences between tigers and leopards.

The best working definition for "species" (or type, or kind, or baramin) would consider hybridisation. Organisms that can produce offspring whether sterile, fertile (partially or fully) would be included within the same species group. A corollary of this is organisms that share hybridisation partners (however distant) would be grouped together.

This would greatly reduce the number of species, and each species would show significant variation, but the species would be isolated from each other. Tigers, leopards, lions, jaguars, lynxes will all be grouped together, but they would remain completely distinct from bears or parrots.

This is similar to fixity of the species. It allows for greater variety than is usually envisioned, though not an alien idea if we ponder domestic dog varieties. It allows for speciation in that subsequent populations may lose breeding capacity with each other, though at the cost of decreased genetic diversity, and no capacity to generate fundamentally new organisms. Some may dispute this definition of fixity of the species by reason that such groupings are frequently at the level of family or even order, or that non-interbreeding populations may arise. Fine, I am committed to the concept, not the name. "Inviolable organism boundaries with capacity for significant adaptation" is adequately descriptive though not so eloquent.

In your faces evolutionists

We have been long told that most of the DNA we have is junk, useless leftovers with no function after millennia of mutation and selection. Apparently only gene coding DNA is functional. Thus it was in the 1980s, and 1990s, and even 2000s though some of the more astute were suspicious.

The creationists were more circumspect. Perhaps gene coding DNA was a small component of the genome but, they protested, all that DNA is there for a reason. We are designed and we are very complicated. Our lack of knowledge does not preclude that the rest of the DNA is functional, we just aren't finished looking. So the junk DNA scenario was disputed by creationists decades ago. Pseudogenes, they said, probably had a function and were not left over relics from our primate, mammalian or reptilian past. Other codes beyond the triplet codon to amino acid likely existed.

This week Nature published 6 papers of several they aim to publish on the ENCODE project, along with other related material at their site.

The publication has made this news though much of this kind of information has been known to several researchers. The importance of introns has been known for some time. That polymerases produce far more RNA than is translated into protein is documented, even if the reason the this has been elusive. Gene regulators and promoters have been known of for decades, though it turns out that enhancers do not exist solely adjacent to the gene, but at distances of hundreds of thousands of bases distant. Why? Well because the 3 dimensional configuration of DNA means that a distant "file" location may happen to be physically nearby.

Interestingly the design advocates were long claiming unknown function for junk DNA. After all, while a few mutations have accumulated since creation, 95% of our genome housing junk is not consistent with design, even broken design. Creationists were dismissed, but it turns out they were correct all along. And the evolutionists who insisted that our genome was predominantly junk are left looking the fool. So much for the off quoted adage,

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

Though I don't expect them to be questioning their dogma soon, rather adding some evolutionary spin,

Why evolution would maintain large amounts of 'useless' DNA had remained a mystery, and seemed wasteful. It turns out, however, that there are good reasons to keep this DNA.

Fossilised copulating turtles

Palaeontologists are at a loss to come up with the mechanism of death in fossilised copulating turtles. The paired turtles had been known for some time and, while mating had been hypothesised, the confirmation that each of the pairs were male and female, as well as some specific positioning, has strengthened the theory.

Male turtles of this species, like many of their modern relatives, have longer tails than females, said Joyce. Also, males were typically smaller than females, a trend clearly seen in the fossils. Finally, in seven of the nine pairs, the turtles are in direct contact along the edge of their shells just above their tails - and in two of those pairs, the male's tail wraps below the female's shell in mating position.

What mechanism would cause the death of 9 (!) pairs during mating? Toxic algal blooms; carbon dioxide in the water; other toxic substances. The proposal is oxygenated upper lake water and saturation of the lower lake water with carbon dioxide or other toxins. They claim this causes death during the act followed by preservation in the oxygen poor water. This seems a bit of a stretch, and so many pairs. It would be interesting to know if turtles stop mating during forced suffocation.

I prefer the creationist proposal for fossilisation: burial in sediments such as mud and lava flows during flooding and volcanic activity. Rapid death and conditions for fossil formation occur together. This explains the mechanism of fossilisation which does not usually occur when animals die; fossil graveyards; and why animals are found in situations such as eating, or giving birth.

Defining creationism

Creationism has a variety of definitions depending on who is using the term. Frequently it is used as a shorthand to Young Earth Creationism, sometimes to the consternation of those who hold to what they consider creationism but don't think the earth is young. Their complaint has some validity, but the cumbersome term Young Earth Creationism invites itself to be shortened. Biblical Creationism has been suggested as an alternative to Young Earth Creationism, especially considering that 6000 years is not really that young. I am not in favour of this. Though I think the Young Earth Creation position is biblical, it not as if other creationists all think their positions are unbiblical. Even if Old Earth Creationism turns out to be unbiblical it is premature to anticipate the outcome of the debate. Literal Creationism would be an alternative to Young Earth Creationism if it were not for the problem that literalism is frequently misunderstood to mean hyperliteralism.

I am not a great fan of eponyms though that is often the outcome. Descriptive labels are good. Perhaps the best labels are those invented by one's opponents so long the term is acceptable to its adherents.

Old Earth Creationism may include ideas such as Progressive Creationism and Gap Theory. I think it preferable to group the major positions logically, then discuss the variants within a general position.

Here are several positions. I have tried to describe the position as viewed by adherents, feel free to correct me if you think I have misconstrued your position.

Young Earth Creationism
Age of Earth
This is the position that God created the world ~6000 years ago, though some may hold to 10000 or 20000 years. The age is that of the earth, the age of the universe is variable, but it was made at the same time at the earth and the universe's age is the same as the earth's age when measured by earth clocks. It denies the big bang occurred.

Species Change
Young Earth Creationism rejects the grand theory of evolution, the idea that all of life came from a single ancestor through a variety of creatures over millions of years. While some claim that it holds to the fixity of the species, this is a less helpful definition due to consensus on how species are defined. Fixity of the genera would be more accurate. It claims that God created various kinds or types of animals so there is no common ancestor of all creatures.

Noachic Deluge
Young Earth Creationism holds that the Flood of Noah was global and is the cause of sedimentary rocks and much fossilisation of plants and animals.

Old Earth Creationism
Age of Earth
This position thinks that the age of earth is 4 billion years and the universe several billion years older. It subscribes to an ancient cosmology including the big bang theory and stellar evolution.

Species Change
Old Earth Creationism also rejects the grand theory of evolution, though they think that various flora and fauna appeared on earth at various times over the last several million years. This are often ascribed to ongoing creative acts. Species may go extinct and fossils are dated according to evolutionary geological scales. Radio-dating is accepted as reliable.

Noachic Deluge
Old Earth Creationism states that the Flood of Noah was local, that the geological strata antedate the Flood by millions of years, and most fossilisation was not a result of the Flood.

Theistic Evolution
Age of Earth
This position thinks that the age of the earth and universe is billions of years. It holds to big bang theory and stellar evolution.

Species Change
Theistic Evolution thinks that all species arrives on this earth according to Darwin's General Theory of Evolution. All living things are linked by common ancestry. They deny the fixity of species, genera, orders etc. as new species are always evolving. Some hold to chemical evolution of life, others argue that the first cell was divinely created.

Noachic Deluge
Theistic Evolution holds no specific view on Noah's Flood. It may be mythical. If it occurred it was local at not responsible for sedimentary rocks or fossils. It denies that all land animals except those on the ark were destroyed. It may deny that all humans, except Noah's family died.

Summary
Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism deny the Grand Theory of Evolution, that is universal common descent is not a correct description of the history of life. Their differences concerning the appearance of life on earth leads to significant differences in theology however.

Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution deny the earth is only several thousand years old. Both think that the universe is billions of years old, stellar evolution is correct and radio-dating is reliable

Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design does not fully fit into this scheme. It has been accused of being clandestine creationism. I am not certain this is fair as creationism is often meant to mean young earth creationism, and many advocates of intelligent design deny a young earth.

Intelligent design only has a position on biological evolution. It has no position on the age of the earth or Noah's Flood.

Intelligent design argues that features in living things that have the appearance of design have been designed by an intelligent designer. That is, design is real, not apparent. Their arguments include information content in the genome, irreducible complexity of biochemical pathways, and statistical impossibility of evolutionary required genomic changes.

The meaning of "expanse" in Genesis 1. Part 6

Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5.

BioLogos have an article on the firmament of Genesis 1, "The Firmament of Genesis 1 is Solid but That’s Not the Point", by Peter Enns. He begins by twice asserting that biblical scholars agree that the expanse (raqiya`) is solid and appeals to observation of the horizon and the assumption ancients thought the world flat.

Ancient Israelites “saw” this barrier when they looked up. There were no telescopes, space exploration, or means of testing the atmosphere. They relied on what their senses told them. Even today, looking up at a clear sky in open country, the sky seems to “begin” at the horizons and reaches up far above. Ancient Israelites and others in that part of the world assumed the world was flat, and so it looked like the earth is covered by a dome, and the “blue sky” is the “water above” held back by the raqia. 

Really? Clouds clearly move across the sky, as does the sun and moon, and even stars. Does the sky really look solid, or is solidity invoked by some cultures to explain rain? Enns does not mention that a curved horizon could lead observers to think the earth spherical, especially combined with observing lunar eclipses.

He goes on to discuss word meanings.

The translation “firmament” (i.e., firm) gets across this idea of a solid structure.

The comment on "firmament" is unhelpful because, although it does carry the idea of firmness, he implies by using the word "translation" in the above sentence that raqiya` means firm when the etymology of "firmament "is actually via Latin.

Biblical scholars agree on this understanding of raqia. For some Christians, however, this is troubling. How can the Bible, which is the inspired, revealed word of God, contain such an inaccurate piece of ancient nonsense? Hence, some invest a lot of time and energy to show that the raqia is not solid but more like the atmosphere. Often, the word “expanse” is the preferred translation because it does not necessarily imply something solid.

We will note here that Young's Literal Translation published in 1898 uses the word "expanse". And "expanse" is considered more accurate given that raqiya` is more likely related to "spread out" than it is to "solidity".

The second problem is a much larger theological issue, but is actually more foundational. Regardless of what one thinks of the raqia, why would anyone assume that the ancient cosmology in Genesis could be expected to be in harmony with modern science in the first place?

Well it may not be in harmony with modern science, by why can it not be in harmony with the truth? If the atmosphere is how it is, why can Scripture and science not both be in harmony with this? Is it somehow better to have Scripture not concordant with the way things are? Modern science understands pregnancy in greater detail than understood by the ancients. Following Enns here it would seem that an inaccurate understanding of the virgin birth by the ancients be more likely to be recorded than an accurate one. But the ancients knew that virgin conceptions were impossible, even if they did not understand activation. Why cannot the ancients appreciate a non-solid expanse even if they did not understand partial pressures of gases, absolute temperatures, and triple points? Every observable can be considered a fact of science. Should every observation in Scripture be expected to be at odds with reality because it can also be described by modern science?

As a matter of clarification, I don't think that Genesis is in harmony with several scientific cosmologies.

Genesis and modern science are neither enemies nor friends, but two different ways of describing the world according to the means available to the people living at these different times. To insist that the description of the sky in Genesis 1 must conform to contemporary scientific is a big theological problem. It is important to remember that God always speaks in ways that people can actually understand. In the ancient world, people held certain views about the world around them.

There is some truth to this latter comment, God may talk in ways that men understand (though not always). An important distinction here is that simplification is not the same as falsity. As Sarfati has often said

A mother might tell her four-year-old ‘you grew inside my tummy’—this is not false, but language simplified to the child’s level (‘tummy’ as a broad term for the abdominal region, but not as specific as ‘uterus’). Conversely, ‘the stork brought you’ is an outright error.

The greater problem here, however, is separating knowledge into scientific and biblical. Yes they are distinct, but by nature of the way they arrive at knowledge. They are epistemologically distinct. But that does not mean they speak to different topics. They may make competing claims on the nature of reality and real events of history. To have an account in the Bible that corresponds generally to the way things actually are, even if that coincides with contemporary science, is hardly a theological problem.

Enns then lays out 7 reasons for solidity of the expanse:

1. The other cosmologies from the ancient world depict some solid structure in the sky. The most natural explanation of the raqia is that it also reflects this understanding. There is no indication that Genesis is a novel description of the sky;
2. Virtually every description of raqia from antiquity to the Renaissance depicts it as solid. The non-solid interpretation of raqia is a novelty;
3. According to the flood story in Gen 7:11 and 8:2, the waters above were held back only to be released through the “floodgates of the heavens” (literally, “lattice windows”);
4. Other Old Testament passages are consistent with the raqia being solid (Ezekiel 1:22; Job 37:18; Psalm 148:4);
5. According to Gen 1:20, the birds fly in front of the raqia (in the air), not in the raqia;
6. The noun raqia is derived form the verb that means to beat out or stamp out, as in hammering metal into thin plates (Exodus 39:3). This suggests that the noun form is likewise related to something solid;
7. Speaking of the sky as being stretched out like a canopy/tent (Isaiah 40:22) or that it will roll up like a scroll (34:4) are clearly similes and do not support the view that raqia in Genesis 1 is non-solid.

Many of these I have addressed previously but briefly

1. Item #1 may be true, but then perhaps the Israelites didn't borrow as much as we think, especially when we consider that Genesis 1 is much older than other cosmologies often referenced.
   
2. I have not identified every occurrence nor researched their content so cannot answer item #2.
   
3. Genesis 7:11 and 8:2 reference the "windows of heaven" and the "fountains of the great deep". These are likely idioms. Nor does either passage actually suggest that the "windows of heaven" let thru the "waters above".
   
4. I have addressed Ezekiel 1 and Psalm 148 here. Job 37 (as currently translated) is suggestive of Enns' thesis, and requires a discussion of its own
   
5. In item #5 he mentions that birds fly on the face or surface of the expanse to which I concur. But this means that the surface at least is non-solid, and other passages mention birds within the expanse/ heavens. Using Enns' own reasoning here the expanse must be non-solid.
   
6. Item #6 is a difficult issue. I have addressed it here. The problem is that while etymology is helpful, it is not definitive. And it is likely that the idea transferred to the noun is "spread out", not the metal which happens to be beaten.
   
7. Item #7 is errant. These are clearly similes as I discuss here, but the association between the tent and heavens is that they are stretched out, not the material they are made from. The sky is stretched out like the way that a tent is stretched out. Consider the phrase, "The boy ran like lightening." This is a simile, but no one would interpret the simile implies the boy is made of electricity.

I don't have much to address in the latter part of the essay. I do not give a lot of credence to the phenomenological argument he tries to refute, other than saying that idioms do not necessarily mean what they literally say. But Genesis 1 is not using an idiom here. The moon comment is irrelevant. Objects can be lights directly or indirectly. The moon is a light whether it intrinsically produces electromagnetic radiation, or just reflects it.

We get to the end of the article. Enns finishes by saying

It is important to be clear on what we have a right to expect from Genesis. This is central to making progress in the conversation between science and faith.

And while I agree with this statement, Enns fails to mention what we can expect from Genesis. I suspect what he and I think is reasonable to exegete from Genesis differs considerably. A repeating theme is that ancient Israelites did not have modern knowledge (or equipment to gain them scientific knowledge). This assumes that what they wrote was based on their (false) beliefs about cosmology, which is usually assumed to be borrowed from other contemporary cultures. It is important to note here that Christians understand Scripture to be supernaturally revealed. Of course the Bible is historical. It touches events in history that were witnessed by Hebrews within and Gentiles without. We have documentary and archaeological evidence on biblical happenings. However while authors used historical sources and observation, insights into the meaning of events was often given by God. And even some historical events require supernatural revelation; how else would we be privy to dialogue between Yahweh and Satan concerning Job?

It would seem that Genesis 1 as history would need to be exclusively revealed as no humans witnessed it. If God created the universe, and if he could reveal the events of the 6 days of creation, and if Genesis 1 can easily be interpreted in line with what we actually observe about the earth and the atmosphere, then why the the desire to force errancy?