Only three major Bible-science controversies have confronted the church: (1) the Copernican controversy, (2) the Darwinian controversy, and (3) the age-of-the-earth controversy. The question about the age of the earth did not become significantly heated until the latter third of the twentieth century. The primary disputants today are young- and old-earth creationists (YCs and OCs); theistic evolutionists and those not holding to biblical inerrancy have little interest in the issue. The debate does not pertain to dating Adam's creation, since both sides believe this occurred only thousands, not millions, of years ago. Nor is the controversy about the age of the universe, because some YCs believe in an old universe. And both creationist camps oppose Darwinian common descent. What is needed is a clearer understanding of both sides and a discussion of how significant an issue this is for biblical faith.
Some OCs contribute to the controversy by contending that YCs undercut biblical credibility with an artificial clash between science and Scripture. The biggest source of the controversy, however, is the contention of some YCs that only belief in a young earth is doctrinally acceptable. Some YCs believe this doctrine is so clear that its rejection compromises biblical authority. While OCs agree that biblical genealogies teach the recent creation of Adam, they don't agree that Scripture teaches that the creation days were consecutive 24-hour periods. (See the article "Are the Days of Genesis to Be Interpreted Literally?”)
Some YCs argue that old-earth views, by placing animal death before the fall, conflict with Romans 5:12. OCs respond that Romans 5:12 says nothing about animal death. The Apostle Paul's context treats only of sin and death's entrance into the human race.
Some YCs worry that old-earth. interpretations make the Bible subservient to science. And it is true that old-earth interpretations arose due to the (pre-Darwinian) discovery of enormous numbers of extinct animals such as dinosaurs. But this same data also led YCs to interpret Scripture in light of science (such as interpreting the book of Job to describe dinosaurs). Indeed, some YCs have suggested plate tectonics as :he possible interpretation for Genesis 10:25, and some offer a young-earth "big bang" interpretation of the first four creation days. Moreover, virtually all creationists now believe biblical descriptions of a stationary earth and revolving sun are from a human observational standpoint and are not intended as technical scientific descriptions.
Some YCs charge OCs with caving in to evolutionary theory, alleging the "long ages" are synonymous with the evolutionary system. Macroevolutionary theory .weds an old earth, but inferring that old-earth views are thereby macroevolutionary is to commit a logical fallacy (x and y regularly occur together; therefore, x is the cause of y). By this same logic, YCs can be charged with accommodating naturalistic views for accepting "microevolution" (the idea that species change over time); Darwinian macroevolution needs microevolution, but this does not entail the two being synonymous. Neo-Darwinists contend that the layers of fossil strata constitute the main evidence for macroevolution. But YCs and OCs agree that thissame fossil record, with its scarcity of credible transitional fossils, does not reveal a history of common biological descent. YCs typically understand fossils as depositions from Noah's flood, and OCs view them as artifacts of supernatural creative acts separated by long time spans.
Some YCs even contend that OCs have contributed to the demise of Western cu1ture, but such contentions are historically unjustified. References by YCs to OCs as "evangelical evolutionists," "semi-creationists," or "compromisers" have clouded rather than clarified the debate. Indeed, YCs are not agreed as to just what is "evolutionary" in matters such as ice ages, star formation, and the origins of species.
A lesson from a past controversy may be helpful. Early in the twentieth century. some held the pretribulational rapture to be central to the faith. Great controversy followed, but eventually most Bible believers realized the issue was not worthy of such contention. Perhaps one day this will be true of the age-of-the-earth controversy. Creationist leaders should work hard to understand the data. And exploring, holding, and promoting various creationist views are legitimate projects. But 4 promoting the controversy as a basis for disunity in the church is another matter altogether.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
No comments:
Post a Comment