Finding Common Ground with YECs - About my Responses to GotQuestions.com
I hope those at GotQuestions.com take no offense to my references to them and their website. They have developed an excellent resource for answering biblical difficulties, and I would recommend them to any Christian who is looking for answers… so far, my only difference with them is on Creation. However, their attitude toward Creation is spot on: Genesis 1 is the inerrant word of God, it’s historical, and it’s literal. Of course, I think that literal account is of an old earth, and from there we part ways a bit… but my intention is to lead one to the same place, which is at the foot of the cross.
The reason this is important is because many Young Earth Creationists believe that the Gospel starts with a belief in a young earth. Given the evidence that the earth is old, I obviously disagree. However, I do agree with their basis. If the scripture is written in a literal manner, but is not literal, then where does it end? Is the burning bush not literal? Is God’s escorting of the Hebrews through the desert not literal? Is the virgin birth and the resurrection not literal? Obviously, they are, but you lose some traction if the very first “literal”-sounding scripture is figurative. How you treat the beginning of the book is indeed a foundation for how you treat the rest, and how seriously others can take your treatment.
Through my own investigations of the sciences and theology, it is my conclusion that the history of the earth, as pieced together by mainstream science, in fact fits a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. In many ways, I actually consider it more literal than Young Earth Creationism.
One of the valid points that Theistic Evolutions make about Genesis 1 is that this chapter of the bible is different than the rest, and so deserves to be treatment differently. I agree, as far as that goes. However, rather than treating it figuratively instead of literally, I treat it as an experience of Jesus and the Holy Spirit hovering over the developing earth. From there, one can see how the earth might be extremely old, and Genesis 1 literally captures it. I have ample scriptural evidence for this, which I blog about regularly here.
Given my claim that Geocreationism is a literal interpretation of Genesis, I (and other Christians like me) can now reclaim some of the theological foundation previously justified by only Young Earth perspectives. This is a critical event, and should not be taken lightly. It removes the ability for onlookers to take some Christian’s belief in an old earth, and immediately discount it because we do not take the scriptures as literally as it is supposed to be taken… with Geocreationism, we do. At the same time, it avoids the pitfalls that come from discarding (or appearing to discard) much of the science that mainstream scientists now take for granted (a common attack volleyed against the faithful Young Earth Creationists).
Another distinguishing feature of Geocreationism is the rejection of an absent God during the development of the species. Unlike most flavors of Theistic Evolution, I believe that God created a process that allowed for the natural accumulation of differences in a species, with the potential to (over time) result in a new species (that is, incapable of mating with its ancestors). However, I do not believe that this mechanism (Natural Selection) was sufficient by itself. While some smaller differences may have occurred naturally, the more significant differences were actively inserted by God Himself. Where species may have emerged on their own, God reserves the right to create some outright on His own, and even killing off ones He didn’t want (like the dinosaurs). This explains why Evolutions can point to nicely transforming species in parts of the fossil record, while Young Earth Creationists can point at sudden appearances of other species… both are true! Both happened as God caused and allowed. Therefore, even amidst the natural processes He put in place, God was not subsequently absent from creation, and the fossil record confirms it.
There are other issues of course, such as when death entered the world, when the Great Flood took place, where Adam came from, etc., and these issues are (or will eventually be) dealt with here. However, it is my intention to not bash or discredit the faith of Creationists or GotQuestions.com. In my experience, Young Earth Creationism has come the closest to portraying an attitude toward Genesis 1 that is most consistent with how I believe we are supposed to treat all other scripture… a step of faith I endeavor to emulate with site! However, I find the mainstream’s response to Creation Science more convincing than Creation Science’s response to the mainstream, even while I believe both sides miss the mark. Somewhere between the two lies the truth that I believe many Christians yearn to find, and I hope to help them find it. I propose Geocreationism as the means to that end.