Why I am a Young Earth Creationist

I am a young earth creationist, but that puts me in an uncomfortable position concerning the practice of science. One hallmark of true science is that the data drives the theory and not vice versa. In other words, we do not decide what we want to prove, then look for evidence, we look at information, data, if you please, and decide what it says. We do this by organizing the data and looking for patterns or regularities. Then we try to verify that we have read it correctly by hypothesizing as to why the regularities exist. More experiments follow to check out other possibilities or confirm the one we have.

In the above outline of procedure, we assume that science begins with no information. That is not strictly true as we always have our training and our personal likes and dislikes. We also have the results of previous work. But ideally we start a "project" with a blank slate.

But when we come to Scripture, things are a little different. The beginning slate is not blank. We read what the text says, then look at the data to see if it lines up. If not, then we begin to look for explanations. Did I misinterpret the words? Is there an alternative "meaning" that I did not consider? Or have I applied the data incorrectly?

So when I say that I am a young earth creationist, I am affirming that I believe that creation and the earth happened within about the past 10,000 years. I do not believe it, thinking that it is therefore true, but rather, I believe it because it is true.

Six times Genesis 1 says, "evening and morning, one day." A first reading does not indicate that this is anything except a normal, 24 hour day. So any belief system that is different must have some external backing. Now, when we come to the Scripture we have to be careful that we do not read data into the Scripture, rather than allowing the Scripture to explain data. We have an advantage over "science" in that we have an all-knowing Author who gave us the story. So the story must be interpreted in light of what the Author of Scripture has said.

There is a theory or interpretation that proposes that the "day" in Genesis 1 is a figurative day, leaving room for vast periods of time to elapse and either evolution, or God-guided changes to occur as the evolutionary theory proposes. In other words, science tries to find ways to fit millions of years into the six days of Scripture. Young earth creation tries to find ways to explain seeming periods of time in the six days.

Aside: My first inclination is to worry about this line of reasoning, because the chain of events in the "long ages and evolution in general" is very uncertain, and changes all the time. One recent explanation is that instead of an evolutionary "tree" some now assert that it is a bunch of bushes. Instead of everything coming from one common ancestor, everything came from its own line which traces back to a multiplicity of "beginning" organisms. End aside.

The time element is constant, so the argument still applies. Looking at "natural data" it appears that the earth is billions of years old. So the Scripture word must mean long time periods. But this falls into the exact trap that I outlined before. The data is interjected into the Scripture and the "clear" meaning is reassessed.

So a valid reinterpretation of Scripture must be driven from another Scripture. The Day of the Lord is given as an example of an indeterminate time. In reality, the actual "Day" is determined. It will be almost instantaneous. But the schedule is undetermined. The phrase "you have your day" is also suggested as a usage that might indicate an indeterminate time. But I do not find that in the Scripture. Even when it says, "your day" it is describing a specific day, not a period of time.

Ezekiel 16:65 uses "your day of pride." But with over 200 other references all talking about a literal day, even if it is not specifies, as in "days to come," it is still talking about a normal day. There are references to the "days of Noah, days of John, or days of Herod," but they are not an indeterminate period. They can be calculated exactly.

When we look at "day," we are required to consider the normal meaning first and foremost. Without Scripture to guide in a different direction, we must be very careful about "adding to Scripture.

I have found one instance where "day" does not mean a 23 hour day. It is in Hosea 6:2
2 "He will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day, That we may live before Him."

And here, even though it does not necessarily denote a 24 hour period, it seems to imply a short period, "two or three days." There is no indication that long periods of time are involved. (Some surmise that the "third day" may refer to the millenium, but even so, a one thousand year day does not allow for all the supposed millions of years being claimed.)

So is there a different explanation for the apparent age of the earth? Whether one accepts the interpretation, everyone must agree that there are viable explanations for the seeming discrepancies. The "old earth" argument must still overcome the six day limitation before rejecting the alternatives. And the more that I read and study, the more I am impressed with the alternatives both in their scientific rigor and theological consequence.

(An article below is referenced with the salient quotation excerpted.*)

The most telling argument is, "I would not want to worship a God Who would ‘trick' me with ‘seeming' or apparent age." The answer is that it is not a trick but an illustration of how things really are. For instance, Adam was created as a 35 year old man. (Just guessing based on speculation of others.) He was not a new born baby or even a fetus/embryo. He was fully developed.

The trees had rings just as if they had been around for many years. To do otherwise would have been dishonest. As Adam watched new trees grow and noted the growth patterns, he would see them reflected in the mature trees with which he was acquainted. To do otherwise would either confuse him, or perhaps convey some "special meaning and value" to the "original" creation over what grew up later.

And just as a final note, when I meet Jesus, I would rather explain to Him how I interpreted the day as 24 hours and that He would be able to do such a thing in six days than alternative. It would be a little uncomfortable if He says, "What part of ‘day' did you not understand?"



* "… so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: a. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience b. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story c. Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark."
James Barr, Oriel Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture, Oxford University, England, letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 April 1984.

http://askjohnmackay.com/biologos-stated-noahs-flood-was-only-a-local-event-and-is-only-a-theological-story-what-do-you-think/