Over the past few weeks, I have been getting into some heated discussions on Facebook surrounding some very deeply held and seeded beliefs about Genesis and the age of the Earth. This topic is just fun to discuss but there are some things I have been noticing about some in the Young Earth Creationism (YEC) crowd that I want to address. The main points are purely philosophical in nature and the others have more to do with historical theology. I am not here to weigh in on the evidence for or against YEC or Old Earth Creationism (OEC)/Intelligent Design (ID). Merely I want to point out some flaws in the case making for fundamentalistic, staunch YEC.[1]
Begging the Question
It seems to be the case that those in the YEC crowd build their case on a reading of scripture that they already assume to be correct. The presupposition of a 24-hour day for all 6 days of creation is built into their case and anyone who disagrees with them is, as one YEC proponent put it, “not believing the whole Bible.” Philosophically, this is an informal fallacy and is by far the most prolific mistake that I have seen. An argument is question-begging when a certain point of view is assumed to be true to get to the conclusion you do when arguing for it. Now, this is not necessarily a bad thing if one has already given a case previously for the assumed truth statement. That being said, if you are assuming something like the plain reading of the text is necessary to understand the biblical account of creation, like many YECs do, then you are guilty of begging the question.
Let it be known that I do not have an issue with taking the plain reading of the text of scripture. I just do not think it is necessary. It is sufficient, yes, but not necessary for the reader. This is because the Bible is a compilation of 66 ancient books that have different temporal and cultural settings as well as different genres. If we were to take a plain reading approach to a text like Genesis we assume that what Moses wrote infallibly and inerrantly is how we would understand the text without the temporal and cultural and literary contexts. Again, this is not going to harm anyone’s salvation but it does provide room for error in belief. Those who do not have the ability or resources to go deeper are off the hook, but those who do have the ability and resources are not. They have the responsibility to dig as deeply as possible to discover the truth as a good Berean would do.
False Dichotomy
The topic of evolution and Christianity is a hot one for sure and one that is not limited to discussions between non-Christians and Christians but between Christians themselves. If we are going to beg the question and assume that a plain reading of Genesis 1 is the correct way to interpret the chapter and do not give any room for evolution at all, then a false dichotomy is created. A false dichotomy is the fallacy in which two positions are pitted against each other as mutually exclusive. This just shows that there is a lack of understanding of the other positions within the Christian worldview. There are positions like OEC, ID, and theistic evolution.[2] They all accommodate, in varying strengths, evolution as a scientifically verifiable fact.
This accommodation is what is known as concordism. Concordism takes many forms but the proper use of it was well described by William Lane Craig in his book, In Quest of the Historical Adam, as “the attempt to integrate the independently discovered findings of contemporary science and biblical theology into a synoptic worldview.”[3] This type of hermeneutic tactic takes seriously the doctrine of common grace in its fullest and most robust description and avoids the false dichotomy of a staunch (24-hour) creation and evolution. This does nothing to cast doubt on the truth of Genesis 1 but it asks the question of whether or not science can tell us how God worked in the creation days described.
The fact that there are positions that accommodate evolution (in various strengths, theistic evolution being the strongest) show that the YEC position of all of evolution being atheistic in nature is a false dichotomy.[4] Christians should avoid this fallacy as it is not Berean and shows a lack of understanding of the available
Ad Hominem
The next pitfall of the YEC position is ad hominem. Ad hominem, or to the man, is to just stoop to name calling. When this fallacy is brought into the creation equation, the YEC ceases to interact with the opposing position and begins to attack the person holding it. This comes in the forms of “you are saying God is a liar” or “you are opposing what the Bible clearly states” or “you don’t know how to read and understand what you don’t want to know.” Notice that none of these are in good faith nor are they dealing with any potential evidence. It does reveal a sort of cornering such that their feelings are hurt or they do not know how to combat the position/evidence presented due to ignorance or arrogance. This may or may not be a fault of their own, initially. However, ignorance is never an excuse because we all have access to the same evidence. It is a matter of whether it was taken into account or not.
If the YEC wants to put these up as conclusions to an argument, there needs to be evidence shown that this is not an attack on someone’s character. What needs to be shown is that the position being taken is a true and not a false dichotomy. That you cannot hold to the position ID, OEC, or theistic evolution and be a Bible believing Christian needs to be shown and not just asserted. When it is just asserted, it is ad hominem and does not need to be rebutted, refuted, or defeated in any manner. It can hang out there in the open for spectators to see.
Condemnation
Condemnation is a serious thing and thus should not be tossed around willy-nilly to whomever disagrees with us. This is not a fallacy but it is definitely a pitfall that needs to be mentioned. Historically, there have been very few beliefs that have been subject to official condemnation. These condemnations include but are not limited to, Arianism, Modalism, and spirit-body resurrection of Jesus. From what I can tell, the debate of the age of the earth or the method of creation were not a part of the official condemnations in church history. This is because the age of the earth or method of creation is not a primary doctrine of Christianity.
Now, if one were to argue from say OEC to Jesus not being divine or the Son, then one would be condemned as a heretic. In other words, to argue that OEC entails denial of Jesus’ divinity would result in official condemnation as heretic. Lucky for the non-YEC views, this is not the case. Yet, the YEC position seems to take this route when dealing with anyone who dissents from them.
To Sum it Up…
These pitfalls of the YEC build on each other beginning with begging the question and ending with condemnation. The fallacy laden approach that this line of thinking is polluted with is toxic to so many inside and outside the church. My whole reason for writing this is to shed light on these fallacies and their use in the YEC movement. I could add a few more, like tu quoque and red herring/strawman to the mix but for the sake of brevity and frequency, I kept it to this slippery slope. Once one begins to beg the question it is a slippery slope into the rest of the pitfalls, and no one comes out better in the end.
As I stated above, I am not presenting arguments for or against any position regarding the age of the earth. I am merely presenting very serious flaws in the line of thinking within fundamentalistic staunch YEC that stems from a plain reading of scripture. This is also not a condemnation of the YEC position. This is a fully biblical position to take regardless of what one does with the science; as one can be utterly ignorant of the abundance of evidence, come to a 24-hour day view of creation. As long as they are committed to following Jesus and holding to all essential doctrines of Christianity, they find themselves in good company with those who do know and are interested in these debates (on both sides).
For those who are serious about defending the faith, I want to humbly remind you to remain humble and to not be hasty in condemning someone because they disagree with your reading of a particular passage that has no impact on one’s salvation.
[1] By “fundamentalistic, staunch YEC” I mean those who take a plain reading of scripture as translated into English as the best and only way to do hermeneutics. For these people, YEC is the only biblical position to take on the topic of the age of the earth and creation. There are no other positions available to the Bible believing Christian.
[2] It must be said that OEC and YEC and theistic evolution should be comfortable taking the moniker of ID when discussing with others who do not hold to any sort of theism since all three point to an intelligent designer of the universe.
[3] Craig, William Lane. In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration (p. 36). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition.
[4] Yes, there are true dichotomies where the two positions are indeed mutually exclusive. An example would be true or false questions on a test where there is clearly one right answer and the other is clearly wrong. Though a good test will not make it clear how they are truly dichotomous, it nevertheless is a true dichotomy.
Brewed Up Apologetics 