Radicals among Young Earth Creationists (YEC) say if the earth is old “God is a liar”; the Bible can’t be trusted and the “message of the Cross and Atonement is destroyed.” Why do they say such things? In a groundbreaking new book entitled The Six-Day War in Creationism Gene Nouhan details the reasons why: YEC rejects three historical teachings in Christian thought:
- The Nature of God (who is infinite, not bound by time, space, or matter)
- The Purposes of the Bible (God’s self-disclosure in the Incarnation)
- The Mission of the Church (to preach the Gospel)
Having worked in the Worldwide Church of God during its historical reform from a cult to Evangelical orthodoxy, Nouhan shows the similarity between how cult theology develops and how rejecting those three historical Christian teachings corrupts understanding and leads to absurdity.
It should be noted that Nouhan also makes clear that belief in a young earth by literalizing Genesis is not the cult. Christians have always been free to interpret Genesis figuratively or literally if they are moved to do so. Rather it’s the radical movement in YEC that attempts to reform the Church and the culture (i.e., our educational system) with six literal days, 6000 years ago.
YEC posits that the Earth is only thousands of years old, based on a literal interpretation of Genesis as if the Bible is some kind of dating device. There are no dates in the Bible, there is no concept of dating events in any construct like BCE. We don’t even know when Jesus was born! This perspective faces numerous practical challenges and misconceptions that have sparked intense debate, persecution of scholars in the Christian community by YE radicals.
Misinterpretations and Militant Terminology
Young Earth evangelists use militant and extreme language to describe perceived threats posed by various Old Earth Creationists ideas (OEC). For example, in the defining book on YE theology, proponents claim that OEC has “severely damaged the Bible’s teaching,” “assaulted the character of God,” and “subverted the Gospel.”[i] Note the three teachings being confused: The Bible’s purposes, the nature of God, and the Church’s Mission in the Gospel.
These terms have militant overtones and suggest a call to arms rather than a reasoned theological debate. This misrepresents the nature of the disagreement which are based on interpretive opinions, by instead, engaging in personal attacks and conspiracy theories.
Well-funded Young Earth organizations have persecuted widely respected scholars and Evangelical leaders who think the earth is old and others who accept Progressive or Evolutionary Creationism. The surrounding controversy and bad publicity have led some to resign their positions due to harassment for thinking the “wrong way.” Loss of livelihood is the fallout from a campaign of personal destruction in, of all places, Christianity. Some Scholars and Evangelical scientists that have come under fire by YEC are Bruce Waltke, Norman Geisler, Peter Enns, Hugh Ross, Francis Collins, Deborah Haarsma, and William Lane Craig. That is cancel culture, which participates in the culture instead of reforming it as the Young Earth Reform Movement promises. The war is on, and it is over, of all things, six days.
The Disease of Millions of Years
YE movement radicals consider the evidence of an older earth as equivalent to a “disease” that leads to further errors, such as accepting biological evolution. According to Ken Ham, “The idea of millions of years is like a disease, and biological evolution is like the symptom. Many Christians are willing to deal with the ‘symptom’ [evolution] but not the ‘disease’ [millions of years].”
This fixation contrasts sharply with the approach of many other Christians who accept the scientific consensus on the age of the earth and see no conflict with their faith. Most Christians accept the Big Bang as the initial act of creation and believe that scientific truths can coexist with theological truths. Even Augustine recognized this problem 1,600 years ago:
A non-Christian knows some things about the earth and heavens…in such a way that he holds to them by certain reason and evidence. But it is a disgraceful and deadly thing that an unbeliever would hear a Christian speaking about these things as if expounding [the scriptures] in some delirious manner so that by seeing him wrong about all of [the universe], he could scarcely keep from laughing. And it is so annoying that…those outside [the Church] believe [biblical] authors were in fact saying such things.” [ii]
That was 1600 years ago!
Augustine also said, “At least we know that the [Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day that we are familiar.”[iii] “At least we know” is another way of saying, “One thing we know for sure.” That is quite a bold statement—too bold for YE radicals.
There are good reasons why Augustine thought the six days were figurative. Augustine would have recognized the humanizing of God (anthropomorphism) in Genesis. He was a bishop and theologian of the first rank. Human traits applied to God can only be metaphors. And since the Bible has no authority over God, Genesis does not dictate His nature.
Today, it does not matter how old Augustine estimated the earth to be since figurative days throw all estimates into speculation when using Bible verses alone. YE reformers will note that despite knowing the six days were figurative, Augustine still thought the earth was 1000s of years old. Since Augustine considered the earth thousands of years old and the days of creation were figurative, he could not have used the six days to determine the earth’s age. So why did Augustine think in 1000s of years?
He simply had no data to assume anything beyond the basic construct of known history; the prehistoric and archaeology was unknown to him. What was known of history, which was very limited at the time, guided his calculation. Contrary to YE assumptions, Christianity never depended on Augustine for the age of the earth. It doesn’t need to. Because Augustine believed God created the universe instantly and that the six days were figurative rules out using the Bible as a dating device, no matter what he considered earth’s age to be.
A critical issue in the YEC perspective is misunderstanding God’s nature and attributes which Nouhan insists can provide a corrective for misinterpreting the language of Genesis. YEC often implies that an old earth undermines God’s character and the Gospel with no real link between those ideas.
This view neglects the understanding of God’s timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and limitless nature. A literal interpretation of Genesis that contradicts these attributes such as watching the sun rise and set according to the standard Hebrew work schedule with a day of rest is problematic. It is more likely that this Hebrew workweek that outlines Israel’s covenantal relationship with Yahweh complete with an illusion to the sabbatical sign of the covenant. The question arises whether such an interpretation is consistent with everything known about God’s attributes. Remarkably, the author of Genesis clearly offers an unending 7th Day to alert the reader to the figurative nature of the week and if the 7th Day is unending, the workweek is unending. It is therefore a divine workweek with divine days with only the illusion to a Hebrew workweek to connect the covenant people to God’s intentions in creation. We know that God’s work of creation and redemption simply continues (with new life created everyday since) despite the literary use of the story in Genesis ends.
Misconceptions about Biblical Interpretation
A common misconception among YEC proponents is the belief that a literal interpretation of Genesis is the only faithful approach to the Bible. This view overlooks the rich tradition of non-literal interpretations that have existed within Christianity for centuries.
Church fathers like Augustine and Origen considered the creation days in Genesis to be figurative rather than literal, 24-hour periods. They emphasized the theological lessons of the creation narrative rather than superficial commentary.
Additionally, YEC often assumes that accepting an old Earth or evolutionary theory undermines the authority of Scripture. However, many Christians believe that the Bible and science address different realms of truth. The Bible speaks to spiritual and moral truths, while science explores the natural world. This complementary approach allows for a harmonious relationship between faith and scientific inquiry.
Historical Context and Evolution of YEC
Historically, the belief in a young earth has evolved into a comprehensive theological system. However, many pre-scientific theologians allowed for a figurative interpretation of the creation days and did not insist on young earth as a core doctrine.
The current YEC stance is not a continuation of an unbroken tradition but rather a recent development in response to modern scientific discoveries. This historical perspective is crucial in understanding how the YEC movement has shaped its current form.
Theological Challenges
YEC also faces theological challenges, particularly concerning the nature of God and His creation. For instance, YEC posits that all death and suffering entered the world as a result of human sin, implying that no animal death occurred before the Fall. This view is difficult to reconcile with the fossil record, which shows evidence of predation, disease, and natural disasters long before humans appeared.
Moreover, YEC’s insistence on a young Earth can create unnecessary barriers to faith. By making the acceptance of a young Earth a litmus test for Christian orthodoxy, YEC proponents risk alienating individuals who see the scientific evidence for an old Earth as compelling. This exclusivity can detract from the central message of Christianity, which is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Moving Forward
A more nuanced approach to the relationship between science and faith is needed to address these challenges and misconceptions. Christians can acknowledge the validity of scientific findings while maintaining a robust theological framework. This approach involves recognizing biblical texts’ genre and cultural context, allowing for interpretations that align with Scripture and scientific evidence.
Prominent Christian thinkers like Francis Collins and John Walton advocate for a synthesis of evolutionary science and biblical faith. They argue that God’s creative activity can be understood through the natural processes observed by science and that these processes do not diminish the divine authorship of creation.
Conclusion
Young Earth Creationism faces significant scientific and theological challenges and common misconceptions about biblical interpretation. By embracing a more integrated perspective, Christians can appreciate the harmony between scientific discoveries and the truths of their faith, creating a deeper understanding of both the natural world and the divine.
[i] Terry Mortenson, “Old-Earth Creationism—Is It A Sin?” July 1, 2012, Answers in Genesis website.
[ii] Richard Averback, Todd Beall, C. John Collins, Jud Davis, Victor P. Hamilton, Tremper III Longman, Kenneth J. Turner, John Walton, J. Daryl Charles, Richard Averbeck, Todd S Beall, C John Collins, Victor P Hamilton, Reading Genesis 1–2: An Evangelical Conversation (Hendrickson Publishers Marketing, LLC, 2013).
[iii] Augustine, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, 5:2 (AD 408).