Author of Contradict – They Can't All Be True.
>> Click here to listen to Episode 46! <<
(Right click and “save as” to download)
Ben Fisher riffs on “12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid”. Answers in Genesis created the list of bad arguments. Do you agree? Are these bad arguments that evolutionists should avoid?
Show Links:
12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid
“Busting a Myth about Columbus and the flat Earth” by The Washington Post
Norman Geisler – this bright, strong advocate for the Christian faith. One of the greatest apologists, defenders of Scripture, in our age. I just saw an article posted on his website… entitled, “Does Believing in Inerrancy Require One to Believe in Young Earth Creationism.”
In this article, he claims numerous times that it is possible to have gaps between the days of the Genesis accounts of creation (Alternating Day-Age Theory). He claims it is possible to have a HUGE gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 (Gap-Theory). He claims it is possible that each day is lengthy epochs of time (Day Age Theory). All of this is true. Anything is possible. He then rips all the arguments of a 24-Hour Day interpretation of Genesis 1. He then provides arguments for all of the other theories. He concludes by saying that the age of the earth doesn’t matter – it’s not important to salvation – it’s never been an essential doctrine or creed in church history – UNTIL NOW, of course.
What Geisler doesn’t do a great job of mentioning is that all of the views besides the “Young Earth” view have death reigning in the world before the fall of man into sin! He also fails to mention that these other views (as of today) are arising not from Scripture Alone, but from the process of inserting prior beliefs into the reading of Scripture and performing interpretative gymnastics to pull out of Scripture the beliefs that were inserted into the text.
Please, read the article linked above, and then read my response.
I think we should note his hermeneutic – his formal principle. Norman Geisler writes near the end of this article, “If the Young Earth view is true, then so be it. Let the biblical and scientific evidence be mustered to demonstrate it.” This is not Reformation sola scriptura at work! That is my biggest complaint against the Old Earth crew. Members of this growing elite, such as Hugh Ross, claim that God has given us two books! Ross actually says “two books.” By this he means natural knowledge (general revelation) and revealed knowledge (special revelation). Since when does God’s revelation of himself through what he has created become on par with Scripture? I think that the Old Earth Creationists are starting with their conclusion that the world is very old based on their interpretation of what they see in the physical world and then interpreting Scripture in light of that presupposition.
From strictly reading the Bible, why would we suspect that there are gaps between the days in Genesis or that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2? From strictly reading the Bible, why would I suspect that there were millions of years of death in the animal kingdom with entire species being wiped off the face of the planet before the creation of Adam and Eve and before their fall into sin?
I agree with Geisler that one does not have to believe the earth is a certain age to be a follower of Christ – to trust in the salvation that comes through Christ’s work alone, but using “science” to interpret scripture is a bad hermeneutic and teaching death before the fall does not sit well with a very good world created by God. Many of the leading Christian apologists today are making claims that death in the animal kingdom was in the world before the fall of man and that there is where the huge problem lies! Death without sin is not Scriptural. God did not create a world of death. Teaching this as the Old Earth Creationists teach can very easily lead people away from Scripture and therefore away from God.
Andy Wrasman 