The Last Young Earth Creationist

8/9/2019 The Last Young Earth Creationist

1/103

The Villainous Confessions of a Young Earth Creationist:

A response to the criticisms, comments, and positions of some

evangelical Darwinists, especially those of Francis Collins asgiven in his book The Language of God

By Jim Owen

I

Authors that undermine a scientific approach to the past

Are thus the poster villains of Nolls book. For those of usWho are Christian anthropologists the! are "#$hibit A%

&f the "'candal of the #vangelical (ind.%

))*ean #. Arnold))

I am a villainos man! "he reader of this lengthy essay needs to be aware of this! It

was not my intent to become sch when I became a born#again, evangelical Christian inlate $%&'! (owever, somehow, in some way, along the way )sometime in the $%%'s, I

believe*, I became a villain! And in the minds of an increasing nmber of evangelicals

)not to mention assorted other +rotestants, Catholics from the pope on down, nnmberedOrthodo, and grim, nsmiling -ationalists*, there is an imaginary wanted poster with

my face firmly implanted on it!

.hat have I done, what is my crime, what shocking heresy have I embraced to earn

sch notoriety/ I am0bt wait0if I confess yo mst promise, good reader, to hear meot, to read every page that follows, and not trn away in intellectal incredlity at my

crime! It is only fair! 1ot that I am ashamed, yo nderstand, bt if I am going toconfess to villainy, the least the reader can do is indlge me, yield me an hor or two sothat I might be thorogh and yo well informed, even if relctantly!

And please, rest assred, althogh I sppose it doesn2t matter considering the natre ofmy villainy, I have not denied any of the great doctrines of biblical3historical Christianity!

"he "rinity and the two natres of Christ are still secre in my presence! "he vicarios

natre of the atonement is a non#negotiable! I still adhere to those great -eformation

principles of 'ola 'criptura 'ola Gratia 'ola Fide! .ith +al, Agstine, 4ther, and ahost of others, I, too, believe that man is 5stified by faith alone apart from works! I am

even old fashion enogh to still believe that the Bible, from the first word ntil the last, is

the .ord of 6od, inerrant and infallible in the original atographs, althogh I will admitthese terms have fallen on hard times among even evangelicals, especially among many

evangelical academics who no dobt smile indlgently at my anachronism!

I am villainos becase I am a 7ong 8arth Creationist! 7es, a 7ong 8arth

Creationist9 I believe 6enesis $#$$ is tre, actal, factal history, that this is what the

athor intended to convey and the reader to nderstand, postmodern theories to the

contrary! I believe in si, :; hor days of creation, the special, ni


2/103

Adam and 8ve by 6od, the garden , the fall, the introdction of death thereby, man2s

rapid decline into nmitigated wickedness, the ark, the niversal flood, the dispersion of

the nations0whatever is recorded in 6enesis $#$$0I believe happened as recorded!.hen I became a Christian in $%&' I echanged my hmanism for Christ and with it

evoltion for creationism, a move I have never regretted! I also re5ected day#age theories,

gap theories, old earth#yong creation theories, and those theories that tried to combinesome evoltion and some creation! "hey simply weren2t convincing, they seemed

disloyal to the tet, that athorial intent was being cloded by eisegesis not sond

eegesis! In addition, they seemed like desperate evasive manevers to avoid animpending doom, and reminded me of a cynical old adage that the trth is always to be

fond half#way between 6od and the Devil! =oon, thogh, I was mingling with the

wrong crowd! I started reading the literatre of the early 7ong 8arth Creationists, those

who organi>ed the Creation -esearch =ociety and later the Institte for Creation-esearch! I began corresponding with some of them, attending their lectres, and even

becoming friends with some of them! Obviosly, over the years, I took on the

mannerisms and appearance of a 78C villain, one who was a dangeros roll model for

callowed Christian yoth!

"oday, of corse, there are considerably more 7ong 8arth Creationists then therewere in the $%&'s, thosands more, yes, even tens of thosands more, inclding

hndreds, perhaps even thosands of which are scientists, many otstanding in their field!

"his is a trth that cases Darwinians to get mcked down in the slogh of ad hominumdenial from which there is no eit! And it means the villainy is now widely distribted,

?thcolmn like, throghot the Christian world, especially the evangelical commnity to

the chagrin of the many Darwinists dwelling within it! (owever, on the other hand,

depressingly )and taking +ro>ac won2t help*, far, far more Christians have embracedDarwinian evoltion in some form or other, inclding evangelicals, especially evangelical

academics! =o great is the capitlation, that when it comes to origins it is often difficlt

to differentiate between the writings of a Christian and the writings of a -ationalist! It isa frightening sitation from a biblical perspective!

"hs, becase they are more nmeros than I and more inflential than I, I am avillain, wanted poster and all! "he etent of my villainos behavior, my ignominy if yo

will, my appalling ignorance when it comes to really nderstanding how to eegete

=criptre, my obscrantist intellectalism, all will be nfolded in the pages to follow!

"he bill of indictment is not pleasant to read! 7ong 8arth Creationists are on the samelevel as Bret (arte2s famos @otcasts of +oker Flat! Oh, the shame0well, not really,

and in the pages to follow is inclded the nrepentant 5stification of my @villainy! .ere

others writing abot me, as will be obvios as one reads on, it is to be dobted sch acortesy wold be etended to me! Bt as this is my confession, I thoght it only proper

and right that I epress the reasons I am not ashamed of being a 7ong 8arth Creationist

even if it means eile into the darkest shades of an academic wasteland and anevangelical otback of sorts in the dead of winter!

In a postmodern academy there is no difference in the minds of many between what is

considered history in the traditional sense and that which is considered historical fiction!

:


3/103

"o sch minds nderstanding athorial intent is not possible or wanted! "hs not only

does the historian sb5ectively interpret the so#called primary docment bt the docment

itself is only a personal interpretation of an event! "his being the case, we are free towrite @history, inclding scriptral history, not to know what really happened in the past,

becase we cannot, bt to meet or present need for a story! All this is nonsense, of

corse, bt as history shows, nonsense is evenly distribted among the poplation as awhole, inclding the academic poplation! "he problem, the danger even, is that this

mind#set seems to be creeping into the evangelical commnity in part nder the inflence

of Darwinism and is, then, in part, the reason for this essay! And in the pages to follow,nmeros eamples of misapplied and missed history, misapplied and missed becase

its prpose is not to nderstand the past bt to spposedly @embarrass 7ong 8arth

Creationists, pt them in their place if yo will, will be noted and criti


4/103

in the early $%'s, especially in misleading yong Christians into believing evoltion

cold be refted and that 6enesis $#$$ was tre history not mythical allegory! "he +ope,

Darwin $st, issed a letter epressing relief that the fires of sch a notorios heresy wasbeing etingished so to speak, and asserting that there was no conflict between evoltion

and =criptre rightly interpreted! (e also took the occasion to blame the +rotestant

-eformation, with its literal hermenetic and belief that anyone cold rightly nderstandthe Bible, for making possible the rise of sch a heresy as 7ong 8arth Creationism in the

first place! "he 8vangelical "heological =ociety, which had declared in :'$? that anyone

believing that 6enesis $#$$ was real history was a heretic and banished from the 8"=,agreed with the +ope and pblished an open letter in the fall edition of its 5ornal

bemoaning the intellectal embarrassment that the 7ong 8arth Creation movement had

broght pon the evangelical academic commnity! "wo months after Dr! =hre2s

internment, IE+ pblished ork 1all2s widely praised,An #vangelical (ind 'candali+edNo (ore, which Christianit! Toda!promptly declared the book of the decade and is now

in its $?th edition! 1oted atheist, -ichard Dawkins )yes, ama>ingly he is still with s*,

also chimed in! In an essay in the October isse of Timemaga>ine )yes it, too, is still

with s*, Dawkins praised the government for hnting down and prosecting Dr! =hre, atre perpetator of falsehood as Dawkins called him! Dawkins went on to point ot that

all religions, bt especially Christianity, broght nothing bt sffering and ignorance tohmankind and oght to be abolished! Dawkins is consistent if nothing else!

Dr! F! Orr @oses II =hre is a perfect, if tragic, eample of why creationist literatrewas banned by the ! =! Congress in :'$G! Dr =hre had been hired by "he aster2s

College in :'$& to bring its =cience department, and the college as a whole, into

compliance with the California Department of 8dcation, the nited =tates Department

of 8dcation, the regional accrediting agency, .A=C, and the Consortim of ChristianColleges and niversities, which had declared in :'$? that any Christian college teaching

a literal, historical interpretation of 6enesis $#$$ and 7ong 8arth Creationism cold no

longer be a member of the Consortim! =ch was necessary, its director intoned, @toprotect the intellectal integrity and respectability of the Christian academic commnity

before Hother2 academics!2

Dr! =hre2s credentials had been impeccable! (e was a card carrying member of the

American =cientific Affiliation and a noted theistic evoltionists who went so far as to

deny that one cold see, or needed to see, any direct evidence of 6od2s hand in any

aspect of evoltion0he had only contempt for those who @preached a 6od of the 6aps0


5/103

Fndamentalism with its entrenched commitment to 7ong 8arth Creation was a barrier

to sch participation! By :'$$ hose cleaning had become a 5ggernat! First these

evangelical schools @fired or retired any 7ong 8arth Creation professors! 1et, theyremoved any professors who even presented 7ong 8arth Creationism as an alternative

possibility! Only professors who held to a theistic evoltionary position were retained or

hired! 8ven professors who held to an @intrsive form of Intelligent Design bt werestill evoltionists, were discharged or denied tenre, perhaps an nfair conse


6/103

beginning with California0prideflly always a leader in progressive legislation and

embarrassed that the Air ality Control Board had been first0began passing resoltions

echoing almost word for word the 8 docment and declaring 7ong 8arth Creationisma form of vile hate speech! In fact, every state legislatre passed some sch resoltion by

:'$? ecept threeK 6eorgia, Lansas, and Idaho! Bt one cold not epect any thing better

from these three @fndamentalist states!

It mst be admitted in all fairness, thogh some wold prefer I not bring this p, that

these resoltions did contribte to the start of a @witch hnt of sorts, and some ecessesdid occr and some did have their constittional rights @overlooked! (owever, people

were fearfl and angry at these @fndamentalists, these cltist0no0these @sickos )as

some radio talk show hosts called them* with their DCD syndrome threatening their

children2s mental well#being and intellectal development! +atience and constittionalniceties were, perhaps with some bt limited regret, ignored! nder increasing pblic

pressre, a few state legislatres, from :'$? on, began passing varios types of laws to

crb if not abolish the spread of 7ong 8arth Creationism! (ome schooling was

abolished and home#schooled stdents who had sed any tet that promoted directintelligent design, let alone 7ong 8arth Creation, were forbidden entrance into pblic

colleges and niversities! 7ong 8arth Creation and Intelligent Design organi>ationswere declared illegal and closed down, despite the protest of Intelligent Design organi#

>ations sch as the Institte of -ecently Discovered Design which declared that it

abhorred 7ong 8arth Creationism and believed in evoltion! If the slightest @smell ofcreationism was attached to a person or organi>ation, it was all over for them and protests

were in vain!

"he he and cry against 7ong 8arth Creationism became so great that in :'$&Congress became involved! At first it applied @soft measres sch as revoking the ta

eempt stats of otright creationist organi>ations and chrches, and otlawing home

schooling that sed sch material! Bt this type of legislation did little to stamp#ot themovement! =o in :'$G, Congress passed what a few hyper#sensitive civil#rights types,

sch as the AC4, labeled a @draconian law labeling 7ong 8arth Creationism hate

speech and dangeros to the intellectal well#being and psychological self#esteem ofAmerican citi>ens, especially the children! "hs all 7ong 8arth Creation material of any

sort0books, monographs, CDs, internet sites, pblic talks0were banned and anyone

sing sch material or advocating sch material, or even spporting the right of people to

possess and read sch material, was at first to be cited and if they persisted, arrested,tried, and if fond gilty interned in a re#edcation camp ntil cred of their delsion! It

was ama>ing how en leading 7ong 8arth Creation @scientists, schas the notorios Dr! Joe Francis and Dr! -oss Anderson, and Old "estament scholars, sch

as the @wooden literalist Dr! =tephen Boyd, were fond gilty and sent off to re#

edcation camps! It mst be admitted that most of those interred have refsed to be re#edcated and remain in the camps to this day! "his is a most troblesome and nepected

development! )(owever the falt for this mst rest pon the 7ong 8arth Creationists as

they are obstinate and incorrigible!* By :':', however, 7ong 8arth Creationism was

becoming a forgotten bit of scandalos historical theology and a disgraced psedo#


7/103

science! 8voltion was accepted and acknowledged and taght every place by everyone,

every time! (ow sweet the victory! 8ven the =preme Cort in :'$G, in a : decision,

rled that Congress had acted in accord with the Constittion, basing it rling on theprinciple that 5st as a person did not have the freedom of speech to falsely cry @fire in a

dark and crowded theater, so no one had the right to voice hate speech in the name of

6od that cold in5re a person2s self#esteem or obstrct one from being able to thinkintelligently abot origins, especially the children! +erhaps most ironic of all was that the

Jstice Department sei>ed the poplar Creation sem near Cincinnati, Ohio! At first

the Department wanted to close it down! Instead, however, it trned it over to the=mithsonian sem to operate in sch a way as to show how ridiclos and

nscientific, and even nbiblical a 7ong 8arth Creation, based on a literal interpretation

of 6enesis $#$$, trly was! 1ow it is reported that many people, inclding many

evangelical Christians, emerge from the @Creation msem with tears of anger on theircheeks, frstrated that people with a mental disorder cold have ever been allowed to

teach and sedce so many trsting, naMve, nsspecting Christians, especially or yong

children! If for no other reason these people say, @for the children2s sake they are glad

7ong 8arth Creation is otlawed!

"hen Dr! F! Orr =hre trned traitor, became an enemy of sond academic learning,and a sedcer of callowed yoth! It is hard to even mention his name withot anger

cloding one2s thoghts! .e had made so mch progress before Dr! =hre trned 7ong

8arth Creationist and single#handedly seemed to almost ndo it all! .e didn2t know it atthe time, of corse, no one did, not even his wife and children! Oh, the shame of it all9

.hen he was finally eposed as a @closet Creationist, his family was eposed to ridicle

and pblic shame, and FBI interrogation )possible something Dr! =hre never considered

in his obsession*! "he pressre was too mch for rs! =hre )an otstanding biologist inher own right*! =he divorced him in early :':; with her chrch2s spport! (is two sons

and oldest daghter also denonced him! (is yongest daghter, however, =hirley

Eictoria, age :?, +hd in cataclysmic geology, spported and defended her father and hasdisappeared withot a trace! It is believed she has 5oined an ndergrond 7ong 8arth

Creation cell for 7ong 8arth Creationist literatre has been srfacing signed, @oses2

Daghter! =he has been placed on the FBI2s ten most wanted list! If any one believeseposre to 7ong 8arth Creation material is harmless, let them consider the F! Orr =hre

home!

(ow did it happen, how did a brilliant and well#respected theistic evoltionist, even,one might say, a theistic rationalist of Dr! =hre2s statre fall to sch a low estate, falling

frther, if yo will, than the mythical biblical Adam he now proclaimed as real and

historical/ According to pre#trial dispositions and cort docments it started in thesmmer of :':$ when Dr! =hre, cleaning ot a storage closet in the Chemistry

laboratory, came across a large, nmarked, sealed bo! @"his bo belongs to "aylor

Jones was scribbled on the cover! Crios, he opened it and fond it fll of scientificand theological books, papers, and 5ornals written by advocates of 7ong 8arth

Creationism! (is first implse was to 5nk the whole thing bt yielding to a foolish

temptation he began reading the top paper, a & page eegetical and theological defense

of 6enesis $#$$ as necessarily historical! ch to his srprise, Dr! =hre fond himself

&


8/103

agreeing with the athor, an obscre creationist3pastor named John acArthr! )As he

admitted nder cross#eamination, he had never completely been convinced with

attempts to interpret 6enesis $#$$ allegorically or metaphorically, bt convinced ofevoltion2s trthflness, he had spported sch an interpretation @to save the Bible from

itself in light of modern science!* Dr! =hre contined reading the 7ong 8arth science

papers! (e was impressed with the consistently high


9/103

(owever the damage had been done! .hen arrested by the special 78C =ppression

nit of the Lern Conty =heriff2s Department, Dr! =hre and eleven others were stdying

an old editorial ):''* from the banned,ible and 'padetitled, @"he 6enesis Flood AnInterpretive Ley to the +ast! 8veryone was arrested and all of Dr! =hre2s files,

compters, and whatever else that might provide information on the 7ong 8arth

Creation ndergrond network, were sei>ed! Bt it all was for naght! 8vidently nothingis in writing0no electronic files, no paper trail, all is committed to memory for that very

reason! =o even thogh Dr! =hre and those with him were interrogated )they were

forced to listen by the hor to tapes of -ichard Dawkins reading the % threvised edition ofhis book, The God *elusion* nothing was learned abot the 7ong 8arth Creation

ndergrond or how material is printed or distribted, or when or where varios cells

might meet or even how they identify each other, althogh the term @6enesis rocks has

srfaced as a possible identifying password! It is all very frstrating to the athorities!And no one is talking! =even of those arrested denied they were 7ong 8arth Creationist

bt had come only ot of criosity0they had never met a real life 7ong 8arth Creation

person before! Althogh their stories are to be dobted, they had no prior record of

associating with or reading 7ong 8arth Creationist material so they had to be releasedwith a warning!

"he shock of Dr! =hre2s arrest and eposre as a closet 7ong 8arth Creationist was felt

nation#wide and dennciations of his betrayal were not slow in coming from both seclar

and evangelical sorces! "he president of the 1ational Association of 8vangelicalsissed this statement last week @It2s not enogh that we have global warming and coral

reefs dying, now we have this again to contend with/ .e thoght we had pt that dark

age, that intellectal scandal behind s once and for all! .e mst make every effort to

sppress this new wave of neo#creationism least people get the impression that a literal6enesis $#$$ has something to do with Christianity! "he aster2s College, thogh

protesting it knew nothing of Dr! =hre2s nefarios and secret 7ong 8arth Creationist

activities, was nevertheless immediately closed down by the California Department of8dcation! =o far the lower corts have refsed the college2s petition to force the state to

allow the college to reopen! @It wold be a tragedy for Cal#li#forn#nia, especially the

children of Cal#li#forn#nia, e#governor and now =tate Attorney 6eneral=chwar>eneggar said, @if this seditios ins#ti#t#tion were allowed to reopen!

III

1ow obviosly, none of the above tonge#in#cheek 7ong 8arth Creation ftristic

narrative is tre! .ell, that is not entirely tre either! Federal corts have forbidden

7ong 8arth Creationism from being taght in pblic schools! And, interestingly, asimilar fate is being imposed pon advocates of Intelligent Design many of whom are not

7ong 8arth Creationists! It is rare to find a 7ong 8arth Creationist teaching in the

science department of a state niversity or college and it wold be impossible for any ofthat opinion to be hired today! Again, even those only advocating Intelligent Design bt

not denying evoltion are being discriminated against!$ And sadly, evangelical colleges

are beginning to avoid 7ong 8arth Creationists when adding to their science faclty!

One cold compile @sorry story after @sorry story bt the prpose of this essay is not to

%


10/103

stack anecdote pon anecdote in order to bild a wailing wall for anti#Darwinians!

Eictimi>ation serves no sefl end! 1evertheless, the dislike, even hostility, toward

7ong 8arth Creationists is more than evident not only among rationalistic Darwiniansbt also among those evangelicals who embrace cosmic and Darwinian @deep time

evoltion as 6od2s means of @creating the niverse as a whole, the earth, and all living

forms that inhabit it, inclding man! One of the most recent eample of this is fond inFrancis Collins2 highly regarded book, The Language of God- A 'cientist resents

#vidence for ,elief, ):''*!

Collins is a world famos geneticists and 5stly so for overseeing the (man 6enome

+ro5ect to its recent completion! (e is also concrrently an evangelical Christian and a

convinced Darwinian even to the point of believing that @once evoltion got nder way,

no special spernatral intervention was re


11/103

8arth Creationists2 position even if they never actally teach it! "his comes throgh in a

nmber of places in his book )and we will retrn to this isse*, especially when he

negatively evalates the possibility of Intelligent Design!& (owever, the following >lement and=hakespearian sense of tragedy, and despite warnings that belief in 7ong 8arth

Creationism is aiding and abetting the enemy,$ ndermining the gospel with sloppy

scholarship,$;trning yong people away from faith in Christ,$?and seriosly hampering

evangelical @thinking abot 6od in relationship to the physical world, $7ong 8arthCreationism is very poplar among what might be called rank and file evangelicals, in

fact, probably more so today than when 1oll wrote in $%%;! .hy is this so despite the

almost constant barrage of negative writing that has issed forth from -ationalist,evangelical, and Catholic @deep#time Darwinians over the last decade or so/

"he evangelical theistic Darwinians nder consideration apparently think it all comesdown to two reasons, both based pon falty thinking and3or falty eegesis of =criptre!

7ong 8arth Creationists accept 6enesis $#$$ as real0thogh limited in scope0history

of the world from its creation in seven literal days to Abraham2s calling ot of r )6en!

$:$*! "hey do so becase they are convinced $* =criptre is the spreme athority in all

$$


12/103

matters of faith and practice, and :* the best or only way to interpret =criptre is literally,

that is, sing the historical#grammatical hermenetic which traces its roots back to the

Antiochene school of eegesis of the ;thcentry! Christopher (all, in his book,/eading'cripture 0ith the Church Fathers)$%%G* makes the following comment in this regard

Conservative biblical interpreters trained in grammatical#historical eegesis will likely take a close look at historical and cltral contet, political and theological

backgrond, and leical and grammatical considerations! "hey will work hard to

hear what the tet might have said to its original adience! Bt they will also, particlarly becase of their high view of the inspiration and athority of allof

=criptre, flly epect the Old "estament tet still to speak today!$&)y italics!*

"his wold certainly apply to 7ong 8arth Creationists! Indeed, their high view ofinspiration wold inclde a belief that since =criptre is inerrant and infallible any time#

space, historical assertions and statement of facts, sch as 8ods :'$$, were and are

tre in their entirety!$G

Both 1oll and Collins challenge the validity of 7ong 8arth Creationists on this point

of interpretation! Collins, while commending the believer for wanting to defend=criptre and 6od from liberal interpretations,$%and noting @there are clearly parts of the

Bible that are written as eye#witness acconts of historical events, holds that other

sections @sch as the first few chapters of 6enesis mst be nderstood allegorically! Infact, Collins claims that, @to =aint Agstine, and to most other interpreters throghot

history, ntil Darwin pt believers on the defensive, the first chapters of 6enesis had

mch more the feel of a morality play than an eye#witness report on the evening news!:'

"hs, Collins claims, the @narrow and nilateral interpretation given by 7ong 8arthCreationists to 6enesis $#$$ is not only nnecessary, it also @ is largely a creation of the

last hndred years, arising in large conseed interpret#

$:


13/103

tations of the Bible that arose from the mania for science of the early nineteenth

centry!:;

In other words, evangelicals of the late nineteenth and a fair portion of the twentieth

centry, as well as present day 7ong 8arth Creationists were and are more the children

of 8nlightenment science rather than the children of the -eformation, or any previosperiod of chrch history for that matter! "his is spposedly reflected in their re5ection of

tradition and previos eegetes, their belief in the ob5ectivity of observation and facts,

their passion for evidentialism, their acceptance of the Bible as not only the ltimateathority bt the only athority, and their handling of @the Bible as a scientific tet to be

indctively stdied throgh renewed reason alone!:? (owever, this last @charge

reminds one of what 4ther said before the assembled prelates and politicians at the Diet

of .orms @nless I am convinced by the testimony of =criptre or by evident reason)for I trst neither in popes nor in concils alone, since it is well known that they have

often erred and contradicted themselves*, I am bond by the =criptres that I have


14/103

liberals in the post Civil .ar period! "he docment is fairly lengthy so I only briefly

smmari>e each of its $; points below! (owever, if one wishes to read the complete

docment, he or she may do so by going to Appendi A in 8rnest -! =andeen2s, The/oots of Fundamentalism- ,ritish and American (illenarianism 1233)$%'! "hogh

short compared to the elaborate catechisms of the -eformation 8ra, the theology therein

is in harmony with the -eformation2s0thogh they, themselves, wold have said inharmony with 1ew "estament teachings! "he emphasis on being @born#again stems

from the first 6reat Awakening and the preaching of 6eorge .hitefield and his co#

laborers sch as 6ilbert "ennent!

=ection one affirms that all =criptre down @to the smallest word, and inflection of a

word, if fond in the original atographs, was inspired by the (oly =pirit! =ection two

affirms the historical orthodo nderstanding of the "rinity! "he third section affirmsman2s creation in the image and likeness of 6od, his sbse


15/103

Fndamentals! =i thosand believers packed the aditorim each day! "he -esoltions

Committee issed the following brief %#point doctrinal statement

$! .e believe in the =criptresPas verbally inspired of 6od, and inerrant in the original

writings, and that they are of spreme and final athority in faith and life!

:! .e believe in one 6od, eternally eisting in three persons, Father, =on, and (oly=pirit!

! .e believe that Jess Christ was begotten by the (oly =pirit, and born of the Eirgin

ary, and is tre 6od and tre man!;! .e believe man was created in the image of 6od, that he sinned and thereby incrred

not only physical death bt also that spirital death which is separation from 6odK and

that all hman beings are born with a sinfl natre, and, in the case of those who

reach moral responsibility, become sinners in thoght, word, and deed!?! .e believe that the 4ord Jess Christ died for or sins according to the =criptres as

a representative and sbstittionary sacrifice and that all that believe in (im are

5stified on the grond of (is shed blood!

! .e believe in the resrrection of the crcified body of or 4ord, in (is ascension into heaven, and in (is present life there for s, as (igh +riest and Advocate!

&! .e believe in @that blessed hope, the personal, premillennial and imminent retrn of or 4ord and =avior Jess Christ!

G! .e believe that all who receive by faith the 4ord Jess Christ are born again of the

(oly =pirit and thereby become children of 6od!%! .e believe in the bodily resrrection of the 5st and n5st, the everlasting blessed#

ness of the saved, and the everlasting, conscios pnishment of the lost!

Once more one may ask, if the 8nlightenment led the fndamentalists astray, in whatway did it do so/ "his statement of faith, thogh brief, cold not be more +rotestant and

finds its roots in the -eformation and even beyond, back to the Chrch Fathers! )"he

fndamentalists were not


16/103

soon know more sond Christian doctrine than all the +relates that rled over them bt

seldom if ever stdied =criptre themselves! Qwingli once commented )and I broadly

paraphrase*, @they are always crying, Hthe Fathers, the Fathers!2 Better they had said, Hthe=criptres, the =criptres!2 Qwingli wasn2t re5ecting the early Chrch Fathers or the first

for ecmenical concils! -ather @(is point, as "imothy 6eorge makes clear in his

Theolog! of the /eformation N$%GG)and here Qwingli was one with 4ther*,

was that all these concils and docments had to be sb5ected to the testing of

=criptre! If they display Christ, they were genine, @of the =pirit of 6od! In this case, however, there was no need to cry @Fathers, Concils, @cstom,

and @traditionK these merely reflected the trth contained in the 6od#inspired

=criptres and made known by the (oly =pirit!:G

Qwingli gave the =criptres spremacy over any and all hman tradition and athority

)how fndamentalist of him*! @I nderstand =criptre, he wrote, @only in the way that it

interprets itself by the =pirit of 6od! It does not reed that no observations are Hsimple2 and no tets yield to

ncritical Hliteral2 reading/ (e gives no names of any one prior to $?' so it is

impossible to know whom he might have in mind! +erhaps he has in mind some of thegreat allegorists of the past sch as +hilo or Origin or even Agstine, or perhaps the

Dominican scholastics that lrich Eon (tton )an early spporter of 4ther* mocked in

his, The Letters of &bscure (en! Collins claims that Agstine as well as @most otherinterpreters throghot history saw @the first chapters of 6enesis as some sort of

morality play rather than real, space3time history!;

One can only wonder why either man wold make sch an indefensible statement/

Collins2 claim can easily be trned on its head and read @prior to the $%thcentry most

Christian scholars wold have accepted 6enesis $#$$ as real history! In The Literal

(eaning of Genesis, thogh Agstine seems to endlessly hem and haw arond the

$


17/103

meaning of the word @day in 6enesis one, his own position was that 6od created

everything simltaneosly and instantaneosly, or, perhaps better, 6od created all si

days at the same time bt presented it as si consective days for the benefit of the slow#learner, that is, yo and I

.hy, then, was there any need for si distinct days to be set forth in thenarrative one after the other/ "he reason is that those who cannot nder#

stand the meaning of the tet,4e created all things together, cannot arrive

at the meaning of =criptre nless the narrative proceeds slowly step by step!?

(owever, if one perseveres long enogh in The Literal (eaning of Genesis )admittingly

a trying task for Agstine loved to speclate* one will discover even Agstine accepted6enesis $# as real history! (e believed in the special creation of Adam and 8ve, a

literal, historical fall and eplsion from a real garden! In fact, I have no dobts that

Agstine accepted all of 6enesis $#$$ as real history! (e divided history into si eras

)Agstine was @hooked on the nmber *, the first two being Adam to 1oah and 1oahto Abraham!Agstine, himself, lived in the final or thera! Along with the vast

ma5ority of the chrch fathers, Agstine believed the earth was less than ,''' years old!

Basil of Caesarea )A!D! :%#&%* was not in agreement with Agstine and in his

4e$aemeronstrongly advocated a literal reading of the first chapter of 6enesis! @I knowthe laws of allegory, he wrote in his ninth homily, @thogh less by myself than from the

works of others, )and indeed he was


18/103

similar to the historical#grammatical method of interpretation, that is, literal, and takes

biblical history seriosly! It prodced three of the finest eegetes of the early chrch

"heodore of opsestia )?'#;:G*, his disciple, "heodoret of Cyrhs )%#;'*, andJohn @6olden oth Chrysostom )late ;'s#;'&*, John Calvin2s favorite eegete of the

early chrch! )Calvin favored Agstine2s theology bt cold not abide his fancifl

eegesis!* .e don2t have a great deal of what "heodore of opsestia wrote, bt we doposses a commentary he wrote covering 6alatians ;::#$! In this little commentary,

while discssing verses :: and :, "heodore makes some of the most cogent remarks on

the folly of allegorical eegesis I have ever read, therefore they are well worth coveringin fll for they are germane to the discssion at hand!

6alations ;::#$ is +al2s so#called famos allegory comparing (agar with the law

and those nder its bondage, and =arah with the free grace of 6od and those who live freender it! @"here are those people, "heodore wrote,

who take great pains to twist the senses of the divine =criptres and make every#

thing written therein serve their own ends! "hey dream p some silly fables intheir own heads and give their folly the name of allegory! "hey )mis*se the

apostle2s term as a blank athori>ation to abolish all meanings to divine =criptre!%

(owever, "heodore pointed ot, there is a significant difference between +al and these

allegorists and that is that +al @never does away with history nor elaborates on eventsthat happened long ago! In fact, @+al gives history priority over all other consider#

ations, even in this section of 6alatians! "he same doesn2t hold tre for @those people

as "heodore called them! @"hose people, he wrote, @Ptrn it all into the contrary, as if

the entire historical accont of divine =criptre differed in no way from dreams in thenight! "he end reslt is that @Adam is not Adam, paradise is not paradise, the serpent is

not the serpent! If they are going to keep doing this, "heodore warned, @they will have

no history left! (owever, if that was the direction they wanted to go, "heodore hadthree


19/103

coming will be clear! "he Apostle says that Christ cancelled Adam2s disobe#

dience and annlled the death sentence! .hat were those events in the distant

past to which he refers, and where did they take place, if the historical accont relating them does not signify real events bt something else, as those people

maintain/ .hat room is left for the Apostle2s words, @bt I fear lest, as the

serpent sedced 8ve N: Cor! $$, if there was no serpent , no 8ve, nor any sedction elsewhere involving Adam/;:

I dobt that one cold find an early Chrch Father )Origin ecepted perhaps*, if hecommented on 6enesis $#$$, who wold deny the historicity of these chapters! As

shown, even Agstine, who loved allegory, accepted the historicity of 6enesis! And can

any one name a Chrch Father who did not believe in a niversal, 1oahic flood/ In an

interesting article titled, @ont Cdi0"re ontain of 1oah2s Ark, that appeared inthe,ible and 'pade )$%!;, :''* the athors list five Chrch Fathers that not only

believed in the 1oahic flood bt also mention the hearsay that the remains of 1oah2s ark

still eisted! "he five Fathers are "heophils of Antioch, Jlis Africans, 8sebis,

8piphanis, and Chrysostom! any ancient pagan, Jewish, and Christian sorcesmention a niversal flood and, of corse, flood legends are world#wide, a topic we shall

retrn to!;

4et me mention two more from the -eformation period that wold agree with the

7ong 8arth Creationists interpretation of 6enesis one0artin 4ther and the $&:'

hiladelphia Confession of Faith, a reprint of the $G%London Confessionpt together

by $'' calvinistic Baptist congregations in .ales, which in trn, is a @bapti>ed revision

of the +resbyterian Westminster Confessionof the mid#$''s!

4ther was a convinced thogh not always consistent literalist, who in his lectres on

6enesis stated, @.e know from oses that the world was not in eistence before ,'''

years ago, thogh he admits one cannot convince philosophers sch as Aristotle of thistrth! 4ther also admits that @great lights sch as (illary and Agstine believed in an

instantaneos creation, bt he will have none of it! @1or does it serve any sefl

prpose, he wrote,

to make oses at the otset so mystical and allegorical! (is prpose is to teach

s, not abot allegorical creatres and an allegorical world bt real creatres and

a visible world apprehended by the senses! "herefore as the proverb has it, he calls @a spade a spade, i!e!, he employs the terms @day and @evening withot

allegory, 5st as we cstomarily do!;;

And, 4ther added, if we cannot grasp why 6od did it this way it is better to admit one2s

ignorance @than distort the words, contrary to their contet, into a foreign meaning!;?

"hs 4ther conclded

Pwe assert that oses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorical or figratively,

i!e!, that the world, with all its creatres, was created within si days, as the words

read! If we do not comprehend the reason for this, let s remain ppils and leave

$%


20/103

the 5ob of teacher to the (oly =pirit!;

It is not difficlt to make 4ther sond like a 7ong 8arth Creationist!

Finally, a simple ed that no observations areHsimple2 and no tets yield to ncritical Hliteral2 reading as 1oll claims, nevertheless a

considerable nmber of otstanding Christian thinkers disagreed and took 6enesis $#$$

as real history becase that is the way it was intended to be read! "here is nothing new inwhat I have related above so it is srprising, even distrbing, that it wold be denied!

EII

=ince $G?' is another story, and one mst agree with 1oll that 6enesis $#$$ has been

interpreted as anything bt history even by many evangelicals0it is myth bt not myth,

theological history perhaps bt not real, space#time history, or maybe allegory ormetaphor or both, bt whatever it is it is not meant to be taken literally! (owever, the

reason for this is simple! +rior to $G?', and this still holds tre for 7ong 8arth

CreationistsK @"he infallible rle of interpretation of =criptre is the =criptre itself!"hs the more clear sections of =criptre interpret the more obscre!;G For eample, if

6enesis one is not clear enogh for some that 6od created all things and everything in si

twenty#for hor days, and very good at that, there is 8ods :'$$ to reinforce this trth!

8ods :'$$ reads, @For in si days the 4ord made the heavens and the earth, the sea,

and all that is in them, bt he rested on the seventh day! "herefore the 4ord blessed the

=abbath day and made it holy, )1IE*! "hese are the conclding sentences to the forthcommandment in which the Israelis are to @remember the =abbath day by keeping it

holy! In other words, no one0man, woman, national or alien0was to do any work

whatsoever within the bondaries of Israel on the seventh day, nor was any domesticanimal to do any work! Failre to obey broght death!

It is difficlt to believe there can be any dispte over the length of days when one

reads the forth commandment )given by 6od to oses* and notes how it was

:'


21/103

nderstood by the Israelites! Israel2s real time work week of si real :; hor days of

labor and one real :; hor day of rest0@a =abbath to the 4ord yor 6od0was

predicated on 6od2s si real days of creation work and his resting from the same on theseventh real day! (istorical reality ndergirded theological trth! 6od worked in real

space#time )from man2s perspective*, Israel worked in real space#time! 6od rested

)ceased from creating and making* in real space#time, Israel was to do the same! "his iswhat the forth commandment demanded!

I sppose there is an alternative possibility! )=omeone always has one!* One coldclaim that Israel2s leader)s* soght to rationali>e their work week and made p the

creation week story! Bt at that point one wold be facing stark nbelief regarding

=criptre for in essence one wold be denying the "en Commandments given by 6od to

and throgh oses! And the 1ew "estament chrch embraced the Old "estament as6od2s inerrant .ord ): "imothy $*! Also, as noted above, bt bears mltiple

reiteration, we cannot avoid the fact that historical acts always spport theological trths

throghot the Bible! "he +assover was celebrated yearly to commemorate a historical,

real space#time event0the eods! Christians celebrate the 4ord2s "able tocommemorate @the 4ord2s death ntil he comes0a real space#time event0and becase

Jess himself institted it and commanded we keep it! +al reminds s in $ Corinthians$?$?#$& that if there was no real space#time resrrection of Jess with the same body,

then there is no forgiveness of sin! If there is no historical reality then there is no

theological trth! 1ot only is 6od sovereign over history bt he acts within it!Christianity is not fonded on a metaphor or an allegory nor is it 6nostic or mythical in

its beginnings, and I am referring to 6enesis $#$$!

=econd, not only do 7ong 8arth Creationists hold to @the infallible rle ofinterpretation of scriptre is scriptre itself, bt they also wold agree with the

hiladelphia Confessionthat,

the spreme 5dge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined

and all decrees of concils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and

private spirits, are to be eamined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other bt the (oly =criptre delivered by the =pirit, into which )att! ii!:%,

$, :K 8ph! ii!:'K Acts viii!:* scriptre so delivered, or faith is finally

resolved!;%

In other words, =criptre is the spreme athority not 5st one athority among many!

1or is any other so#called athority )sch as deep#time evoltion* otside of =criptre to

be allowed to contermand a clear scriptral teaching or statement!

4et me give an interesting eampleK consider both 6enesis $ and I Chronicles

$;! "hey read, @"here were kings who reigned in 8dom before any Israelite kingreigned and then follows a list of their names! For decades liberals considered this a

fiction in the Bible becase no archeological evidence eisted to spport this claim by the

athor of either I Chronicles or 6enesis $! (owever, over the last decade

archeological evidence has been discovered that vindicates both of these verses0an

:$


22/103

8domite kingdom did eist before Israel had its first Ling!?' 4et me be clear here! I

Chronicles $; and 6enesis $ were3are historically tre! "he archeological evidence

does notproveit tre, it only affirmsits trthflness! If no archeological evidence hadyet to emerge, it wold still be historically accrate! "hat is what biblical infallibility

means!

EIII

(owever, it shold come as no srprise that sch a hermenetical approach, that is,that =criptre interprets =criptre and =criptre being the =preme athority in all

matters to which it addresses itself, is abandoned when it comes to 6enesis $#$$ by those

who believe in @deep#time evoltion! At this point, general revelation intercedes and

spercedes special revelation, and general revelation, itself, is reinterpreted to mean the@facts of natre as ncovered by science, and the @facts of natre when it comes to

origins really mean @deep#time evoltion! "his mega#shift of both the importance and

content of general revelation is an interesting bt deeply distrbing trend for it trns

historic doctrine on its head! "raditionally, general revelation meant a limited btspecific revelation from 6od of himself to mankind throgh or in creation )or natre*

itself )cf! Acts $;$;#$G*! "hs, for eample, a cell biologist as he stdies the hman celland notes the compleity of its parts and the intricacy of its mechanisms shold come to

reali>e withot a dobt that a personal, all#powerfl being06od0has created this

marvel of irredcible compleity!

"he classical tet for this trth of general revelation is -omans $$G#:' which reads

"he wrath of 6od is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who sppress the trth by their wickedness, since what may

be known abot 6od isplainto them, becase 6od has made itplainto them!

For since the creation of the world 6od2s invisible


23/103

follow, +al goes on to describe ancient man2s descent into gross wickedness that reslted

from this intellectal devoltion!

"hird, general revelation, or natral revelation as it is sometime called, is a limited

revelation! It reveals to me certain y god2 )deus otiosus*, a distant and aloof deity who created the world bt who

:


24/103

seldom, if ever, interfered with the goings#on in it,?;as he is completely opposed to the

Intelligent Design ovement, treating those in it almost as harshly as he treats 7ong

8arth Creationists!?? (e believes that @once evoltion got nder way, no specialspernatral intervention was re


25/103

And as noted earlier, Arnold is, to say the least, anti#7ong 8arth Creation! 4ike ark

1oll, he implies that 7ong 8arth Creationists are anicheistic in their view of 6od and

creation

"he 6od of the Bible is not an aloof deity of disembodied and immaterial spirit

that bears little or no relationship to the integrity of the world )and its past* that is a prodct of divine creation! Athors that ndermine ascientificapproach

to the past are ths the poster villains of 1oll2s book NThe 'candal of the #vangelical

(ind!: )Italics mine!*

Althogh this is a 5andiced interpretation of how 7ong 8arth Creationists2 view 6od,

and Arnold, himself, seems to be flirting with an etremely immanentistic vocablary that

cold easily slide over into pantheism )and I am tempted to ask whose poster boy arethose athors who ndermine an historical approach to the past given in 6enesis*, what is

critical is to note is the enormos importance attached to a revised general revelation in

the theology of evangelical theistic evoltionists! @A doctrine of creation that affirms the

integrity of natral revelation as a reflection of the character of 6od is ths absoltelyessential to be able to know abot, and proclaim a 6od of "rth who can be known from

the Bible!

.hen one pases to consider that Arnold2s @doctrine of creation is deep#time

@materialistic Darwinism, one can only be ama>ed at what Arnold is asking s to believe0that evoltion gives s insight into the character of 6od, an insight that is essential to

nderstanding 6od2s revelation of (imself in =criptre! "he implications are staggering

for biblical Christianity! "oward the end of this essay we will eplore these implications

in depth!

Arnold2s comments serve to highlight a comment by 1oll0@By holding on so

determinedly to or beliefs concerning how we conclde 6od had made natre, weevangelicals forfeited the opportnity to glorify 6od for the way he had made natre,

)i!e!, deep#time evoltion*! By over reacting to @>ealos seclarists we have, 1oll

concldes, @gone back to thinking that we mst sht p one of 6od2s books if we want toread the other one!; Once more, 7ong 8arth Creationists wold point ot that this, too,

is a distortion of their position! 1either book is @sht p, however, and, in fact, the isse

at hand has nothing to do with science per se and everything to do with history! .hose

narrative of origins and man2s early history is the tre narrative06enesis $#$$ or deep#time Darwinism/ Darwinism is a materialistic historical interpretation of natral data,

not a scientific interpretation as sch becase it cannot be sb5ect to rigoros, repeatable

eperimentation!

Obviosly, both Collins and Arnold wold )and do* spport 1oll2s contention that @the

best theology shold nderstand and incorporate the best science, and that sch was thecase among leading evangelical scholars of the latter part of the $% thcentry no matter

what their position on Darwinism! "hey were, as 1oll pts it, @nited in believing that

biblical interpretation needed a contribtion from the day2s best science, even as it

eerted an inflence on the application of scientific conclsions!? .ith the rise of what

:?


26/103

1oll labels @fndamentalist science, a!k!a!, 7ong 8arth Creationism, however, he

believes this evangelical wisdom was abandoned!

IS

Both 1oll and Collins appeal to historical athorities to bttress their argment0Agstine, 6alileo, .arfield0with 1oll additionally calling on Francis Bacon and

Charles (odge! It is worth looking closely at two or three of these historical figres to

see to what etent they really spport the contention that the best science shold informand interpret the best theology and what they might have meant by @best science and

whether they were wise in embracing it the way they did! From 1oll2s perspective the

best @science on origins wold mean deep#time evoltion and the best interpretation

)theology* of 6enesis $#$$0informed by this best science0wold mean anything btliteral history! (owever, the se of athority figres can be a doble#edged sword, as we

will see!

"he etensive


27/103

wisdom and myths of the age! In other words, when it came to creation, a clear statement

of =criptre, sch as (ebrews $$ )@By faith we nderstand the niverse was formed at

6od2s command, so that what is seen was not made ot of what was visible, 1IE*, wasnot interpreted in light of the @best science based on @reason and eperience bt rather

was sed to confront and challenge it! .hy/ Becase =criptre was 6od2s word and

carried spreme athority! (owever, when it came to +tolemaic astronomy )with itsgeocentrism* no protest were arosed becase it did not impinge pon 6enesis $#$$ and

6od2s sovereignty over all creation, both seen and nseen! In fact, +tolemaic astronomy

wold fit nder Agstine2s comment that even the nbeliever, throgh @reason andeperience, knew something abot natre and how it fnctions )i!e!, the sn revolved

arond the earth*! And Agstine believed that =criptre taght the same! "his does

raise the interesting


28/103

biblical observations was to garantee misunderstandingof =criptre )1oll2s italics*!%

"he gist of 6alileo2s comments rn something along these lines .hile the =criptres

don2t lie their tre meaning may be hard to discern becase it may not be obvios from aliteral interpretation! =o in @disptes abot natral phenomena one doesn2t start with the

Bible bt with @sensory eperience and necessary demonstration, )i!e!, empirical

science*! .hile 6od is revealed in both natre and =criptre, natre cannot violate @theterms of the 4aws imposed on herP whether we nderstand them or not! On the other

hand, @not every scriptral assertion is bond to obligations as severe as every natral

phenomenaP! "hs any natral thing that has been evalated by @sensory eperienceor proved by necessary demonstration shold not be called into


29/103

than merely recording a personal observation when they noted that the sn appeared to

move and the earth to stand still! Obviosly this was reinforced by the niversal

acceptance of +tolemaic astronomy0the best science of the da!! "he key isse then waswhether the Bible was also a reliablescientifictet on natral phenomena as well as

6od2s word regarding history and salvation! "his meant the confrontation was not

between a literal interpretation of =criptre and science, as Collins seems to think, btbetween a long established scientific theory )+tolemaic* and a new scientific theory

)Copernican*!

.e will retrn to the 6alileo problem shortly, bt for the moment I want to deal with

the


30/103

+erhaps (odge was on to something, thogh, becase evoltion is not an eperimental

or empirical science bt rather an imaginary @science! In fact, the central pillar of

biological, deep#time, Darwinian evoltion0that over vast, incomprehensible measresof time, random, minte mtations and natral selection bring abot whole new more

comple species from previosly wholly other, less comple species0is neither testable

in the laboratory nor presently observable in natre!&G

"he historian John 4ewis 6addispt it most sccinctly when he wrote

Bt not all sciences work this way Ni!e!, by repeatable eperimentation! In fields like astronomy, geology, paleontology, or evoltionary biology, phenomena rarely

fit within laboratories, and time re


31/103

origins of natre and man2s early history from the creation of Adam to the calling of

Abraham! It is as simple as that! In one sense then, there are no valid scientific

observations of natre to conslt or dialoge with when it comes to origins becase thereis no way to observe it or test it! In addition, the observations of a @science of origins

based pon the interpretation of the data of natre filtered throgh the lens of

niformitarianism and Darwinian evoltion are not the same as the debate overgoecentrism verss heliocentrism of the early $''s! "hs to se 6alileo2s appeal that

rational observations of demonstrable natral phenomena shold be sed in interpreting

some scriptral verses is to not only misnderstand what the 6alileo affair was reallyabot, and to misse it to attack 7ong 8arth Creationists, bt it is also to misconstre

what is really at stake! For the real isse is not which science is correct one bt which

history is the correct one! "here are only two choices, the Bible2s version given in

6enesis $#$$ and a rationalistic one based on natralism that interprets all history in scha way as to eclde, even forbid if yo will, the possibility of seeing or allowing any

evidence of divine creation or intervention in natre!

S

1ow let s retrn to 6alileo and consider his historical contet! Broadly speaking,+tolemy2s theory of geocentric astronomy devised in the second centry A! D! was

considered the @best science of its day, and it rled as sch ntil the end of the $ th

centry! It was not the prodct of the chrch bt it fit in well with practically everyonefor it complimented common sense eperience!G$ Althogh we tend to @sneer at it today,

given the limited ability to observe the heavens and the limits of mathematics at that time,

it was, all in all, a theory that seem to best fit the facts! "he Chrch as a whole fond

nothing in it that contradicted =criptre or its theology and mid#set, and, in fact, easilyfond ample @proof#tet to spport it, thogh in doing so it practiced an ndetected form

of eisegesis! =o then, if the best science is to inform and interpret the best theology, we

have a perfect historical eample of this in the early chrch which was then carriedforward by some early +rotestants and the -oman Catholic Chrch0for all of them, with

few eceptions, embraced the +tolemaic system p throgh the $thcentry! By the $&th

centry this was no longer the case among +rotestants! 6alileo himself records aconversation he had with Cardinal Qollern in $:;! @ HQollern left yesterday for

6ermany,2 6alileo wrote, Hand he told me that he had spoken with (is (oliness abot

Copernics, and mentioned that the heretics are all of this opinion and hold it as most

certain, and that we shold therefore proceed very circmspectly in coming to anydetermination!2 G: And it wold seem that 6alileo wrote his/epl! to 7ngoli)Ingoli was a

Jesit who had written an anti#Copernics work in $$* in late $:; in part to make the

point that @as a good son of the chrch, he wanted +rotestants to know that Catholicswere not all ignoramses like Ingoli!G

Leeping the above in mind, I want to consider something that 1oll has written

"he testimony of Agstine, Bacon, 6alileo, and .arfield can be smmari>ed by

focsing on a concrete eample if the consenss of modern scientists, who

devote their lives to looking at the data of the physical world, is that hmans

$


32/103

have eisted on the planet for a very long time, it is foolish for biblical inter#

preters to say that @the Bible teaches the recent creation of hman beings! "his

does not mean that at some ftre time, the procedres of science may shift in sch a way as to alter contemporary consenss!G;

1ow, one might want to


33/103

.hat abot those =criptres @literally interpreted to refte 6alileo2s heliocentrism/

Is Collins right in claiming @the insistence on a literal interpretation of these particlar

verses seem wholly nwarranted/G& Certainly when one reads Charles (odge2sstatement abot @interpreting the Bible @by science and Nths makeNing the two

harmoni>e one is reading a very @gn#shy $%thcentry evangelical! Bt did (odge and

.arfield, and other $%th

centry evangelicals over#react and ltimately ndermine whatthey hoped to protect0not only the ancient principle that =criptre interprets =criptre

bt also the -eformation principle of 'ola 'criptura/ "hey, too, seemed to have

misnderstood the real problem that was being wrestled with by the early $''s! "heproblem was not over whether certain verses shold be interpreted literally or not! Both

those for and those against the Copernican hypothesis accepted a literal interpretation of

the verses in


34/103

"hose who have written abot natre of the niverse have discssed at length

the shape of the earth! If it be spherical or cylindrical, if it resemble a disc andis e


35/103

(is achievements were so nmeros and revoltionary that those developments

sally smmari>ed nder the term @Copernican revoltion can, with consid# erable 5stification, be properly called Leplerian! Althogh 6alileo springs p

in the poplar mind as the greatest of early modern astronomers, his actal astro#

nomical achievement was meager compared to that of Lepler!%:

And Lepler was a deeply pios astronomer at that, considering the @eegeting of the

heavens @analogos to eegeting the Bible and he offered it @to 6od as an act ofworship!%

In addition, not only was Lepler a better astronomer than 6alileo, he was also a better

eegete of =criptre! Lepler had desired to be a theologian before switching over toastronomy, and had actally stdied theology for a year and a half at "bingen

niversity! Being 4theran, he also had the advantage over 6alileo when it came to

biblical eegesis! At this time +rotestants debated the pros and cons of Copernican

astronomy and =criptre as vigorosly, and probably more openly, than did the Catholics!(owever, +rotestants believed in 'ola 'criptura)the spremacy of =criptre in all

matters of faith and practice*, literally interpreted, that is, sing the historical#grammatical hermenetic! "his meant that close attention wold be paid to athorial

intent, how the original adience wold have nderstood it, the langage and grammar

sed, and the contet or genre! It also meant that the +rotestant eegete did not have toyield athority to an in


36/103


37/103

say amen! "he problem 6alileo faced was not a clearly demonstrated natral phenomena

over against a =criptre that @literally contradicted it! .hat he faced was an eisegetical

interpretation of a =criptral verse that cold not be corrected becase it carried theimprimatr of the +apal Cria throgh the Concil of "rent based pon the conclsion of

the Chrch Fathers reinforced by +tolemaic astronomy! "he best science of the day

harmoni>ed with the best theology of the day! Being Catholic, himself, 6alileo lack the+rotestant freedom to challenge all of this, and ths came to some strange conclsions of

his own!

If the above is tre for +salm %$, it holds dobly tre for both +salm $';? and

8cclesiastes $?! +salm $';? reads very mch like +salm %$ @(e set the earth on its

fondations it can never be moved )1IE*! Once more we have a poem etolling the

ma5esty and greatness of 6od over (is creation! Beginning with verse five throgh versenine, we have a poetic description either of the third day of creation when 6od separated

the earth from the sea, or the time of the conclsion of the 1oahic flood when the waters

receded to their assigned place, when 6od @set a bondary they cannot crossK never again

will the sea cover the earth, )vs %, 1IE*! .hatever the case, it wold seem to beimpossible that the athor was intending to claim in +salm $'; a scientific statement that

the earth was indeed the center of the niverse in accord with the +tolemaic system! "hepoet2s whole prpose in this +salm is to give praise and glory to 6od as the creator and

sstainer of the earth and all life therein! (owever, many favoring geocentrism did

consider +salm $'; a @disptation onph!sica, so Lepler gave it special attention! (ecame to the conclsion, after noting the lack of technical langage, and @following the

Agstine dictm0stressed by 4therans0of comparing =criptre with =criptre, that

this particlar +salm @was in fact a commentary on the heaemeron of 6enesis chapter

$! "his being the case,ph!sicawas the @frtheriest thing from the +salmist2s mind!Instead, what the psalmist wrote was a @hymn to 6od the Creator! As far as Lepler was

concerned, @"he very fabric of the tet and its genre indicated a doological, ladatory

intention!%% Again then, it is an eample of eisegesis, even for the seventeenth centry,to claim the athor2s prpose in verse five was to make a @scientific statement that

validated geocentrism according to +tolemy! Old habits, however, are hard to break! One

can say thogh, in response to Collins2 comment that today we know these verses werenot meant to be taken literally, is that, yes, they are to be taken literally as "yndale and

Lepler well nderstood! In fact, there was no reason not to take them literally!

Once again, what has been written above applies to 8cclesiastes $?, @"he sn risesand the sn sets, and hrries back to where it rises )1IE*! It is the first verse of a

descriptive poem0descriptive of repetitive natral processes we eperience everyday0

to reinforce the athor2s central thesis in verse :b, that all is @tterly meaningless8verything is meaningless and verse Ga, @all things are wearisome, more than one can

say, )1IE*! 1either the contet nor the athor2s intent lend spport that the prpose of

verse ?, even in a secondary sense, was to make a scientific declaration that geocentrismis tre! "he athor may have believed in geocentrism, most ancients probably did, bt his

intent was to se common eperiences and observations to reinforce his rather nihilistic

take on life! If we were to pdate the athor2s intent in 8cclesiastes, one cold take the

$%'s (ippy sond bite, @life is a bitch and then yo die, and one wold captre the

&


38/103

meaning of these opening verses of 8cclesiastes eactly! .edded as it was to +tolemaic

astronomy and the Chrch Fathers, the +apal Cria read these verses as absolte

statements of fact and not 5st personal observation from a limited perspective sed fordoological or philosophic prposes! (owever, as mentioned, 6alileo also had a blind

spot in this regard!

SIII

In a long letter to a friend in $$?, 6alileo attempted to interpret +salm $%#Gmetaphorically based on his nderstanding of the sn2s fnction and prpose! (e did this

in response ) indirectly at Cardinal Bellarmine2s rging* to the poplar claim that these

verses discredited or @stood in the way of Copernican doctrineP!$'' 6alileo2s discorse

wold be worth e the incorrigible ignorance of the @common folk, a position

Bellarmine cationed 6alileo, that wold only infriate his opponents!$':

G


39/103

Interestingly, there were a few theologians0not very many0within the -oman

Catholic Chrch willing to accept the idea that the =criptres sed common everyday

langage with no intent of making scientific statements! "he most notable was +aoloAntonio Foscarini, a Carmelite priest! 8arly in $$?, he pblishedA Letter on the

&pinion of the !thagaeans and Copernicus /egarding the (otion of the #arth, which

was @ a forcefl bt serene plea for the compatibility of the Copernics hypothesis with=criptre! It was Foscarini2s position that the =criptres were @written to be nderstood

by one and all ths they @employed poplar rather than scientific langage! @6od,

Foscarini opined, @chose to reveal only what cold not be discovered by the light ofreasonK the rest he left to hman disptationP!$' "his was close to the developing

+rotestant position!

=rprisingly, in April of the same year, Foscarini received a @thoghtfl andconsiderate reply from Cardinal Bellarmine )aimed also at 6alileo* which pt a lid on

the frther acceptance of Foscarini2s position! Bellarmine2s opposition was three#fold!

First, Copernics2 hypothesis was 5st that, a hypothesis for which there was no real#life

proof! =econd, the Concil of "rent opposed any interpretation of =criptre that wascontrary to the consenss of the Chrch Fathers! "hird, referencing 8ccl ?;, the

Cardinal claimed =oloman was @the most learned man in the hman sciences and in theknowledge of all created things! It was a wisdom from 6od and sch being the case, it

was @not likely that he N=oloman wold affirm something that went against some trth

that was already demonstrated or was likely to be!$';

1evertheless, it is known that 6alileo cold have helped his campaign if he cold

have given more solid proof for his heliocentricism! Bt here his own limitations

hindered his case! First, his theory that the tides were cased by the earth2s motion wasbeing proven wrong, thogh he woldn2t admit it, and second, becase he believed the

earth moved arond the sn in a perfect circle, he re5ected Lepler2s finding that planets

moved in elliptical orbits arond the sn0a discovery that wold have been very helpflin his advocacy for Copernics2s hypothesis! In a sense, 6alileo shot himself in the foot

becase of his own scientific ego!$'?

SIE

All of the above verses, and others similar to them, se descriptions of one2s everyday

observations or eperiences, for poetic prposes! If Lepler2s interpretive approach iscorrect )and who


40/103

readers of oses2 time abot 6od2s character, and not attempt to teach sci#

entific facts abot the specifics of creation that wold have been confsing

at that time!$'

"his is partially tre bt misleading! I have no problem conceding along with Lepler that

6enesis $#$$ does not teach science thogh that doesn2t mean it doesn2t contain factalmaterial! On the other hand, the prpose of 6enesis $ and : is mch more than to reveal

the character of 6od! "his is a conclsion as falty as the +apal conclsion that the Bible

was a scientific treaties on the earth2s immobility! "he prpose of 6enesis $#$$ is toteach that 6od created the heavens and the earth and all that dwells therein as 0ell as

ho0 he specificall! did it0(e spoke them into eistence over a period of si, :; hor

days which means there will not be a great many scientific facts abot the @specifics of

creation to learn to begin with! Jst as important, however, 6enesis $#$$ is an historicalnarrative! "hs I do have a problem with those who deny that 6enesis $#$$ is history, a

record of real space#time events, and that this comes throgh lod and clear when one

reads it! "his is somewhat analogos to .indshttle2s comment above abot how

everyone will see the moons of Jpiter revolving arond that planet! One may claim that6enesis $#$$ is an allegory or metaphor, bt to deny that it was written to be nderstood

as a historical narrative is to deny the obvios, it is to repeat the mistakes of the +apalCria and others who accepted +tolemaic astronomy withot


41/103

that plaged the +apal Cria! Collins, at one point in his book, writes, @Bt other parts of

the Bible, sch as the first few chapters of 6enesis, the book of Job, the =ong of

=olomon, and the +salms, have a more lyrical and allegoricalflavor, and do not generallyseem to carry the marks of pre historical narrative, )italics mine*!$'& In another place in

his book he asserts, @any sacred tets do indeed carry the clear marks of eyewitness

history, and as believers we mst hold fast to those trths! Others, sch as the story ofJob and Jonah, and Adam and 8ve, frankly, do not carry the same historical ring, )italics

mine*!$'G

One can2t help bt notice the company Collins forces the @first few chapters of

6enesis, and Adam and 8ve, to associate with! One sspects that Collins is trying to

establish some kind of gilt by association! "he +salms are indeed poetry as is the =ong

of =olomon! Job does not pretend to be an historical narrative bt that doesn2t eclde itfrom being an historical event! And as far as Jonah is concerned, we mst presme

Collins agrees with the liberal commentators that it is a work of historical fiction meant

to convey a theological trth! "his is a ement! First, Collins believed wholeheartedly in evoltion before

becoming a Christian! In becoming a Christian he never once


42/103

inform the reader abot what had happened from the very beginning of man2s history

ntil Joseph2s death! Again, if someone wishes to consider the first eleven chapters of

6enesis as allegory one is free to do so bt one shold not patroni>e the tet by claimingthis is what the athor intended to write! If one is relctant to do this we mst do

something similar to what "heodore of opsestia did, ask


43/103

"his is e how foolish it is

to insist on a yong creation and a literal, historical 6enesis $#$$ )even if that is what it

teaches*! And, in fact, a third thing may resltK we may come to agree with 1oll @that no

observations are Hsimple2 and no tets yield to ncritical Hliteral2 reading0ecept, ofcorse, 1oll2s tet!$$$

At this point one mst pase and ask, is 1oll )and those theistic evoltionists that

agree with him* ptting 7ong 8arth Creationists in the same position as the +apal Cria

pt 6alileo/ Consider the following comparison! Collins notes that 6alileo was accsedof promoting atheism, of ndermining 6od2s plan of salvation and of casting dobt on the

incarnation!$$: (e was forced to denonce his heliocentrism as contrary to the clear

@scientific teachings of =criptre! "oday, the sitation is reversed! .e have an

imaginary scientific theory of origins possessing many serios difficlties bt widelyembraced by the Christian commnity as a whole as a settled fact, ths =criptre is to be

interpreted so as not to contradict this @settled fact even thogh it seems to contradict it!

A small grop has arisen which does take the contradiction seriosly and gives theathority to =criptre rather than to an imagined scientific theory of origins, and has the

adacity to point ot that the @settled fact is not so settled after all! "hey are attacked

mercilessly, they are accsed of endangering the faith of yong people, of beingintellectally and theologically bankrpt, of misrepresenting 6od, of ndermining the

gospel, of sloppy scholarship, of being nfaithfl to the Bible, of shtting p one of

6od2s two revelatory books, and of obstrcting @a scientific approach to the past! "hey

are, indeed, it appears, what Arnold has labeled them, the villainos poster#boys of1oll2s, The 'candal of the #vangelical (ind!$$ +erhaps one shold ndge 6alileo to

move over in his grave for a greater enemy of the Chrch than he has now emerged!

.hat a fascinating trn of events0I am considered a danger to the cross becase Iconsider historically necessary those events that necessitated the cross! +erhaps the @sci#

fi introdction to this etended essay is not as nimaginable and far#fetched as originally

intended!SEI

It is tre, thogh srprising in retrospect, that many if not most late $%thcentry

evangelical theologians3scholars were deeply impacted by both 4yell2s niformitarian

;


44/103

geology and Darwin2s The &rigins of the 'pecies, one cold even say intimidated if not

panicked! "his is the real price they paid for their inordinate @mania for science that

1oll speaks of! 4iberal Christians and hmanists, sch as Andrew Dickson .hite, whowrote an anti#Christian tome titled,A 4istor! of the Warfare of 'cience 0ith Theolog! in

Christendom )$G%G*, were doing all they cold to discredit historic#biblical Christianity

and pose the chrch as an enemy of scientific progress! "hs the 6alileo incident wasdistortedly played p along with the blatant ntrth that the -oman Catholic Chrch had

opposed Colmbs2 voyage becase the Bible taght that the earth was flat! 8vangelical

scholars, more than ready to believe the absolte worst abot the +apacy, seemed to haveaccepted at face vale these accsations and had no intention of being tarred with the

same anti#science, obscrantist brsh! It is at this time that nmeros if not most,

evangelicals began embracing a day#age theory of some sort or even a previos creation

theory as proposed by 6! (! +emper in his book#arths #arliest Ages)$GG;*, acceptingand harmoni>ing some aspects of evoltion and niformitarian geology with 6enesis $

and :, and interpreting 6enesis #G as a local flood rather than a niversal one! From this

7ong 8arth Creationist2s perspective it is an embarrassing episode of capitlation

withot even the pretence of a fight, and of nwarranted eisegesis0blatantly soregarding the 1oahic flood! It is almost as if evangelicals were frantically trying to save

the Bible from itself! .hat is ironic abot the whole thing is that these evangelicals werenow doing what they condemned the -oman Catholic Chrch for doing, that is, nder the

inflence of the best science of the day, forcing =criptre to read in a way it was not

intended to be read when written by the athor! It wold seem that when it came tomodern science0which throgh Darwinism gave s a racist anthropology and the

egenics movement in America0the $%thcentry evangelical shelved all of their critical

faclties!

"his, I think, is reflected in (odge2s comments )thogh he was more reticent than

most*0e a common figre of speech or observation is notnecessarily scientific bt still accrate from the observer2s viewpoint! "hs we too still

speak of the sn rising and setting! And, as noted above, (odge is sing the word

@science in an old#fashion way to mean carefl investigation of the natral phenomena

arond s vis#a#vie rigoros indctive reasoning that leads to conclsions all can agree on

;;


45/103

becase all have access to this same method of investigation! =ch an indctive

)Baconian* method was even applied to theological stdies and theology was dbbed

@een of the =ciences! (owever (odge is open to criticism for what he leaves ot ofthe above paragraph which, had it been inclded, wold have given a better perspective

on the isse at hand! First, he fails to differentiate between observable natral

phenomena and history in =criptre! 1et, (odge makes no mention of the Bible beingviewed as a scientific tet by many Christians prior to the $''s! "hird, (odge makes no

mention )bt shold have* of the prevailing acceptance of +tolemaic astronomy and that

the -oman Catholic Chrch of the $''s was doing eactly what (odge was doing in thelate $%''s0harmoni>ing the best science of their day with what they thoght =criptre

was saying! (ad he done so he cold have pointed ot that at any given time the best

science of the day may mislead as well as inform! And it is obvios he has the 6alileo

incident on his mind! By a little historical investigation, if he did not already know this,he cold have made known the fact that even within the -oman Catholic Chrch there

was spport for interpreting verses like +salm $% as simply descriptions of personal

observation written in everyday langage rather than as scientific assertion!

(e might also have noted that Lepler, thogh an open advocate of heliocentrism, was

not persected for his position by his chrch )4theran* or by the Catholic Ling of+rage in whose palace he served as cort mathematician ntil forced ot by conter#

reformation politics! (e might also have pointed ot the hermenetical insight Lepler

and other +rotestants were developing, especially regarding =criptre being considered atet onph!sica. "hs there was no conflict between science and =criptre for +rotestants

like Lepler! .hen confronted with verses sch as +salm $';?, @(e set the earth on its

fondationsK it can never be moved,)1IE*, Lepler @arged that +salm $'; was not a

philosophical Ni!e!, scientific treatise Non astronomy, bt a doological commentary tothe creation story in 6enesis $!$$? 8actly9 In other words, Lepler, raised the ed the opinions of the

early Chrch Fathers throgh the reactionary edicts of the Concil of "rent! On the otherhand, they cold not have said the -oman Catholic Chrch was going against the best

science of its day!

.hat the heliocentric controversy did do was make theologians and eegetes go back

and look more closely at =criptre! Did the athors really intend to @scientifically teach

a geocentric niverse/ .as that the prpose for which the verses in


46/103

literal meaning of the =criptres in e for 6od for (is seeming lack of foresight in this regard! .hen evangelicals

allegori>e 6enesis $#$$ or seek to reinterpret a day into a geological era or try to trn the6enesis flood into a local flood, this is eactly what they are doing! .e don2t say it that

way, of corse! 4ike any good assistant covering for the Boss2s gaff, we blame those who

came before0they were the ones who misnderstood0we throw them nder the bs and

spare the Boss any embarrassment! And in the process, to or credit, resce Christianityfrom irrelevancy!

SEII

4et me retrn one more time to 1oll2s interesting comment that,

if the consenss of modern scientists, who devote their lives to looking at the data

of the physical world, is that hmans have eisted on the planet for a very long time,

it isfoolishfor biblical interpreters to say that @the Bible teaches the recent creation

of hman beings!$$ )Italics mine!*

;


47/103

Collins, in his own way, agrees

Pstdies of hman variation, together with the fossil record, all point to an origin

of modern hmans approimately a hndred thosand years ago, most likely in

8ast Africa! 6enetic analysis sggest that approimately ten thosand ancestors gave rise to the entire poplation of billion hmans on the planet! (ow, then,

does one blend thesescientific observationswith the story of Adam and 8ve/$$&

)Italics mine!*

It is his conviction that @the stdy of genomes leads ineorably to the conclsion that we

hmans share a common ancestor with other living things!$$G .hat does this mean for

Christians/ It means that 6enesis : @is a poetic and powerfl allegory of 6od2s plan forthe entrance of the =pirital natre )the sol* and the moral law into hmanity!$$%

)Collins seems oblivios to the theological problems his own interpretation creates!*

Obviosly, then, the best science, or consenss of the vast ma5ority of scientists )is thisone in the same thing/*, mst compel s to interpret 6enesis $#$$ allegorically! 4et s

grant this for the moment for the sake of the argment to follow! And let me introdce itby altering slightly 1oll2s statement given above and consider the otcome! @If the

consenss of modern scientists, who devote their lives looking at the data of the

biological and medical disciplines, is that when living things die, inclding and especiallyhman beings, they do not come back to life bt decompose, @it is foolish for biblical

interpreters to say that Hthe Bible teaches2 that Jess literally, physically resrrected

from the dead on the third day with the same body even thogh atthew chapter :G,

4ke chapter :;, and John chapter :' claim this! Bt then, again, it is 1oll who has saidthat @no observations are Hsimple2 and no tet yields to ncritical Hliteral2 reading which

means we can2t really be sre what these chapters mean! I am sre that 1oll, Collins, and

Arnold wold balk at what I have 5st written! "hey wold do so becase the physicalresrrection of Jess in the same body is the heart of the gospel! It is to this that we

initially appeal to when we say Christianity is an historical religion and these men and I

believe this! (owever, it is not an nfair proposition to raise! If science is or ltimatehermenetic then sholdn2t it be applied e


48/103


49/103

were not myths, not metaphors, not allegorical interpretations, bt real events witnessed

by and recorded by real people!

Bt if the gospel acconts are trstworthy eyewitness acconts worthy of holding fast

to, if they trly have the right @historical ring, then it mst follow that whatever is

spoken or done by or 4ord in these docments is also trstworthy! "hs, when asrecorded in 4ke $$$&, Jess said to the dead son of the widow of 1ain, @7ong man,7

say to yo, get p9 )Italics mine*, that is eactly what happened! @"he dead man sat p

Nwonderfl ironic hmor on 4ke2s part and began to talk, and Jess gave him back tohis mother! 7et if everything Jess said and did is trstworthy, Collins, as well as those

theistic evoltionists who agree with him, has a dilemma! Collins does not believe the

book of Jonah is historically tre!$: Jess did! In 4ke $$ :%, ', :, Jess addresses a

growing crowd and charges

"his is a wicked generation! It asks for a miraclos sign, bt none will be given

it ecept the sign of Jonah! For as Jonah was a sign to the 1inevites, so also will

the =on of an be to this generation ! ! ! "he men of 1inevah will stand p at thelast 5dgment with this generation and condemn it for they repented at the preach#

ing of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here )1IE*!

Documents

The Last Young Earth Creationist