The Origins War –– Young Earth Creationism
The Origins War –– Young Earth Creationism
Is Young Earth Creationism the most Christian view? When “literal” and “liberal” theologies compromise the gospel.
In Part 1, I first did a quick summary of the primary beliefs and major sticking points for the predominate views in this debate – Young Earth Creationism (YEC), Progressive or Old Earth Creationism (OEC), Intelligent Design (ID), and Evolutionary Creationism (EVC) – with emphasis on the extreme ends: YEC and EVC. Second, I outlined the battlefield and that the crux of the battle takes place in our understanding of natural theology and the weight of evidence of the natural sciences. This is manifest in the stark contrasting goals between Scriptural inquiry and scientific inquiry. Scripture claims to teach the immutable truth of God, and then some. Science claims to produce probable and provisional outcomes, especially in evolutionary and origins science. The two are not of equal value, fundamentally. Third, I quickly explained what the theory of evolution is and then contrasted that with what is meant when each view says “Evolution”. YEC argues that Evolution is entirely naturalistic, EVC argues it is necessarily theistic. Fourth, I provided brief scientific and philosophical reasons to doubt naturalistic Evolution, and that it seems to require theistic (intentional, purposeful) supervision for the theory to work at all.
In the end, my conclusion was that we ought not to rely on purely natural stochastic processes to explain the origin of life and cosmos or even develop a theory for the development of life on earth. Unlike the binding beliefs of Scripture, there is no obligation in nature or the natural sciences to firmly believe in a theory espoused in evolutionary or origins science. Evidence only matters in a world where truth matters. If there’s no good reason to believe in truth, or if it is evolutionary unbeneficial to believe in truth (for survival, reproduction, et cetera), we have good reason to reject truth, which runs against our cognitive faculties and basic intuition to believe in truth. Believing in naturalistic Evolution undercuts itself. Yet, the purpose/desire of belief is to obtain truth, which rests outside the scope of science. Therefore, the probable and provisional conclusions of the evolutionary and origins sciences are not worthy objects of firm belief, especially considering the gapping unanswered scientific and philosophical holes that need to be filled by natural models. Considering this dynamic, I established a vital principle: A spiritual belief is preset to a higher standard than a scientific belief. The war, then, is not grounded in the sciences, it’s found in Scripture, which is what birthed the scientific method in the first place. If there’s no Scripture, then, there’s no war. Understanding the relationship between Scripture and nature is at the heart of this debate, which I will address next entry.
In this entry, I begin to narrow in on one of the two accusations laid by YEC: Evolution compromises the salvation call–––the gospel. But with special attention on EVCs defensive position: the traditional view of Genesis is not necessary for salvation.
Sir Joseph Boehm, “Charles Darwin Statue” (c.1885) in the main hall of the Natural History Museum.
Returning to the question at large: Is the theory of evolution in any sense compatible, complementary, or contradictory with what Scripture testifies about creation? Unfortunately, the blanket condemnation of evolution has made this discussion a hot, dense mess. To reject evolution is precarious–––which thesis? No one is rejecting them all, and everyone is rejecting the naturalistic presuppositions that attempt to overturn Christian values and theology (admittedly, to differing degrees). So, where do we sit? According to YECs, to reject Evolution (capital E) is to reject the synthesis of all five theses, not each thesis distinctly. After all, there is strong evidence for natural selection and descent with modification, and a synthesis of said two theses does not necessarily contradict YEC views, though the mechanism driving natural selection must be sped up quite a bit for it to work. YECs also adamantly oppose common ancestry thesis (the spinal cord of Evolution), ancient earth thesis (billions of years), and the progress thesis (favouring genetic entropy). For sake of clarity, to restate the differing gradational views, many Old Earthers and Intelligent Designers also reject the universal common ancestry and progress thesis of ape-like hominins to modern humans on theological ground, just like Young Earthers – humanity is a special and personal creation made in the image of God[1] – the difference being that they see no theological issue with either thesis regarding animals. Either way, to reject such views, rather than remain agnostic, highlights that the conviction is grounded in a Scriptural interpretation.
For this reason, among others mentioned before, understanding the compatibility (or synthesis) of Evolution with Genesis does not boil down to the natural sciences, it boils down to the explicit priority structure of spiritual belief taught in Scripture. So–––in order to properly address the compatibility issue of Evolution with creation, we should also ask if the strongest literal view of creation, Young Earth Creationism, is in any sense incompatible or contradictory with what Scripture testifies about new creation–––the gospel? While this may appear as a detour from the central focus, it is not. Christians are called to live like Christ, first and foremost. To live in the Spirit is part of the salvation call. And if neither YEC or EVC are necessary for long-lasting belief in Christ, that is our Christian life and witness, or affect essential doctrine such as the gospel and great commission, then it further reduces the heavy-handed threats made by each camp. On that, I think Evolution can compromise the gospel. But so can radicalizing Young Earth views. Here’s why.
Scope of the Gospel
In a nutshell, the gospel is repent and believe into the life, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. That is, if you repent of your sins, confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, then you will be saved by grace through faith (Romans 5:2, 10:9; Ephesians 2:8). To fully adopt his ways, words, and will is to conform to the image of Christ (i.e., sanctification) rather than conform to the pattern of this world (Romans 12:1-2). It is more than just believing that the historical events or biographical account surrounding Christ’s life occurred, though this is necessary for doctrine, it is fully trusting in God and the immediate lifechanging power of the Holy Spirit. The gospel, then, is all-encompassing, yet unified in a triad of belief – historical (past), personal (now), and eschatological (future) – all of which must affirm actual events did and will take place. Theologians and commentators tend to emphasize different Christological prongs of this triad, especially in systematic theology, focusing on the historical and eschatological portions of the gospel that are necessary for doctrine. All necessary doctrine is underpinned by spiritual, theological, and prophetic truths, particularly in Messianic fulfilment. In broad sweeping terms, everyone agrees on the eschatological anchor points necessary for the gospel – second coming, consummation, new creation, et cetera – and are content to disagree on the nitty gritty details, so I will not discuss future things here.
The historical portion of the gospel varies in volume, so to speak, between YECs and EVCs. EVCs largely affirm the essential anchor points of the historical gospel are indeed rooted in Genesis, chiefly the historical Adam and Eve (sometimes as sole progenitors, sometimes not), the Fall, and the genealogies, but typically maintain there is wiggle room for understanding its historical content, given its ancient literary context. Whereas YECs largely, if not, solely affirm the historical portion of the gospel in every respect, that not a jot or tittle of Genesis is not literal; that is, a verbatim retelling of physical and mechanical correspondence. The historical gospel to YECs, then, directly depends on the plain sense reading of Scripture. By contrast, EVCs argue the plain sense reading is limited to its ancient cultural and literary context. Both YEC and EVC affirm Biblical inerrancy, that the Bible “is without error or fault in all its teaching”, but EVC more strongly maintain that Biblical inerrancy is limited to its original manuscripts, rejecting a potential modern filter over interpretation.
Both agree that Genesis 1-11 is anchored by history but disagree on to what extent of it is plainly historical, that is corresponds to physical processes, with one prime exception: Death before the Fall. YECs argue there was no historical death at all before the Fall, neither animal or human, and that the world, not just Eden, was manifestly perfect. EVCs who affirm Scriptural authority and Biblical inerrancy tend to argue there was or may have been animal death before the Fall outside the Garden of Eden, but not human death (albeit some attempt to argue that there was human death, and that the Fall speaks of spiritual death and not physical death, but I’ll breach that in a later entry). The theological argument for animal death before the Fall is not pulled out of thin air, however. The only thing giving Adam and Eve eternal life was the fruit from the Tree of Life, which was restricted to the Garden of Eden where Adam was placed after he was created (Gen. 2:7-8). Adam was not inherently an eternal creature. When God casts Adam and Eve out of Eden, he charges a cherubim to guard the Tree of Life “lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever” (Gen. 3:22-24). Therefore, only Adam and Eve were given the conditional opportunity for physical eternal life; they were commanded to tame the rest of the natural world (“....subdue it, and have dominion....”) and then, presumably, to fulfill their divine gardening responsibilities, were to sow seeds from the Tree of Life across the world for its creaturely inhabitants (Gen. 1:28). In all honesty, this Adamic covenant remarkably parallels the overarching gospel narrative and kingdom building mission of Christ, the second Adam. That aside, the point is that animals outside the Garden had no such luxury of eternal life and could die without human (Adam’s) intervention.
In summary, the historical portion of the gospel that which underpins this theological battle of origins hinges on two anchor points, the historicity of Adam and Eve and the breadth of this verse: “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:23) Does death refer to humans or all living creatures? I will engage the importance of the historical gospel next entry.
The personal portion of the gospel is concerned with our immediate belief and faithful servitude in the power of Christ’s atoning work. Here, there is soft outward agreement, but not really. Both YECs and EVCs agree that the personal gospel is God’s territory, and rightfully so, it’s about the condition of one’s heart and only God has the power to forgive[2]. YECs largely believe that compromising the historical gospel in Genesis can override one’s personal belief in Jesus Christ over time, EVCs do not seem to believe that. This is what I meant last entry when I said YECs mostly agree that evolutionary beliefs do not a compromise salvation[3] – repentance and belief in Christ’s resurrection and ascension and full devotion thereof – but they seem to backdoor it as a salvation issue by claiming evolutionary beliefs compromise the gospel, likening the matter to the apostle Paul’s stern warning (Galatians 1:8). Strong YEC proponents, such as Ken Ham, do not consider it a direct salvation issue in itself (Romans 10:9), but they do believe it is an indirect salvation issue, which “can encourage others toward unbelief”[4] concerning the authority of Scripture and then, by consequence, the gospel – “can” is the operative word, here. In other words, Evolution may be a stumbling block for some, and I agree. But some push too far when they liken all EVCs to “false teachers” as “shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep” (Jeremiah 23:1) for affirming/teaching Evolution, likening it to “unbelieving thought”[5]. This is confusing. Are they saved or are they not? If to teach the compatibility of Evolution with Genesis is a false teaching (and not just teaching falsely), then the teacher who teaches it is, categorically, false–––a liar, a fraud, willful and conscious of their apostasy against God, beyond recovery even. And if it is condemnable to teach, then it follows that it is condemnable to believe. But if evolutionary belief “can” encourage others toward unbelief, why all the panic? Is it not also true that old fashioned dogmatism can encourage others toward unbelief, as well?
So, here we are: Is one’s full belief or compliance in a rigid physical and mechanical interpretation of Genesis 1-11 essential to the personal gospel? Or more sharply: Must I believe in the Young Earth view to ensure long-lasting belief in Christ, to be truly saved? Which logically entails its foil: Is a loose view of the historical gospel’s anchor points in conflict with one’s belief in the personal gospel of Jesus Christ and salvation thereof? No, no, and not necessarily.
Radicalizing Young Earth Belief
I would hesitate to take the judgment seat of God so assuredly. It is one thing to sharply oppose earthly ways of thinking and firmly stand for truth, it is another thing to condemn all Evolutionists as heretics, particularly false teachers, in one fell swoop. This is a growing attitude I keep witnessing within Evangelical churches and ministries, YouTube videos and blogs, that there are “Evolutionists” and there are “Christians”. It’s one of the main reasons why I started this series. It is impetuous and self-gratifying to dismiss all Evolutionists (and OECs) as “liars”, “swindlers” and false teachers “leading many astray”[6], as one’s who will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, as some YECs have done (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). The gospel hangs on the spiritual power of Christ, not on our understanding of the sequential order and mechanical exactitude of creation, such as 24-hour days, the surgical removal of Adam’s rib, or the serpent had vocal cords and legs before the Fall[7]. For YECs who so ardently stand for the truth of Scripture, some have come to inadvertently oppose the grace of God and the truth of the gospel by making young earth necessary foundational belief and disqualifying other possible views of Genesis (not just Evolution) as faithless, unbiblical, even anti-Christian. Even so far as to throw emotive, belittling rhetoric at differing conservative and Biblical interpretations of Genesis as “pagan” or “philosophy”, calling themselves the only “Biblical Creationists” and all others compromised[8]. Or have we forgotten that humility is essential to the faith? For what does God say to the prophet Job, who likely knew the Genesis account and, according to YEC, believed in their interpretation of Genesis: “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it?” (Job 38:4-7) This biting cynicism echoes the comment Ken Ham made years ago against Bill Nye and dogmatic mainstream science: “You weren’t there”. Come Judgment Day, are we going to tell God all He did in the beginning by condemning those who do not believe in an exclusive mechanical interpretation of Genesis? That is the charge, is it not? It is graceless to implicate someone who so much as disagrees in literalistic young earth model of creation as less faithful, pagan, or apostate–––if, indeed, that is where you sit.
Many YECs falsely assume that if everyone just affirmed Young Earth Creationism at face value, all would be well. But this is not so. Adam and Eve did fall, did they not? Through moral and spiritual disobedience. And they believed in a young earth, too, according to Young Earth Creationism. Did not the Jews during the time of Christ largely believe in a literal creation, that the cosmos was made roughly 4,000-years-ago in seven consecutive 24-hour days, and yet God rejected them because of their hardened hearts? They also believed in the authority of Scripture and ardently stood to preserve it (cf. John 5:39). How, then, does believing in a literal young earth justify or secure obedience toward God? God saved Nineveh, for goodness’ sake, an Assyrian city devoted to polytheistic worship and some of the cruellest, most gratuitous forms of torture in history (cf. Jonah 3:6-10; Matthew 12:41). Was the gospel hindered there? Were they less forgiven? By contrast, if you so much as skim the surface of Church history, most of whom presumably believed the earth was young, it very quickly becomes evident that belief in a young earth carries no practical or personal convictions to resist our sin nature, which effects our immediate moral behaviour and spiritual understanding of Scripture. And understanding Genesis 1-11 is no exception.
On the History of Genesis Belief
People have sincerely wrestled with understanding Genesis 1:1–2:3 for centuries, long before Evolution, Darwin, and the age of Enlightenment. Namely the early Church Fathers Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD), Origen of Alexandria (185-254 AD), Basil of Caesarea (329-379 AD), Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) and John of Damascus (675-749 AD), all of whom argue for instantaneous creation and that the six days of creation were likely not literal 24-hour days because time itself was not created yet, the creation event itself – Genesis 1 – took place outside of time. This interpretation is solely based on key characteristics within the Text itself, not because of nature, science, or some unbeknown devotion to another religion[9]. Today, the argument is that time was created on the fourth day when the sun was created (Genesis 1:14-19), but Genesis 1 is still written without time as a key factor of creation, which is why Old Testament scholars and theologians often quote Peter, “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” (2 Peter 3:8; Psalm 90:4). Not that a single day is a thousand years necessarily, the Day-Age theory as we call it, which is what Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), Irenaeus of Lyons (120-200 AD), and Cyprian of Carthage (?–258 AD) thought, but that time is irrelevant to an eternal being such as God who created time ex nihlo. What’s also worth noting is that most early Church Fathers who wrote about creation completely ignored the topic and remained agnostic about the meaning of the word “yom” in their writings–––Athenagoras (133-190 AD), Tertullian (155-220 AD), Athanasius (296-373 AD), Eusebius (260-339 AD), Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 AD), Gregory Nazianzen (329-389 AD) [10]. Granted, there were a fair number of early Church Fathers who interpreted the length of the days literally in a similar but not identical way to Young Earthers, such as Theophilus of Antioch (?–183 AD), Ambrose (337-397 AD), and Ephrem the Syrian (306-373 AD) and arguably Basil, too, but he seems to send mixed signals.
The point is it was a mixed bag. Neither was it condemned or socially unacceptable to hold differing views, so long as the reasoning was sound. The Bible did not convince many Christians before the rise of modern science in the 16th century that Genesis was a mutually exclusive, verbatim, mechanical account of creation, yet they were still considered Christian, nonetheless–––not heretics, not pagan, not half-Christians–––just Christian. The weight of the gospel did not hang on Genesis’ shoulders. Granted, many of them may have been wrong, but the point still stands, if not, strengthens. Everyone stumbles one way or another, to put it gently, nor does everyone firmly apply sound doctrine in all facets of their life. Granted again, the Church Fathers generally did not impose new models onto the Text or undermine its historical record in the way we see today and remained largely agnostic—not indifferent—about the intimate details of physical creation, prioritizing humility over mechanistic knowledge (and this is the right approach to Genesis 1-11, in my view). Their position on the obligatory belief of the doctrine of creation, then, is virtually the same as EVCs today, sans the additional input from the natural sciences and evolutionary theory. Augustine who sharply opposed a gradual, natural process of creation but emphasized God’s power of instantaneous creation, said this: “[W]e should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.”[11]
Now consider some notable conservative theologians of the 20th century, such as B.B. Warfield, Karl Barth, John Stott, C.S. Lewis, and even Billy Graham, all of whom upheld Biblical inerrancy and the authority of Scripture yet believed that Evolution could be compatible with Scripture[12]. Why? Genesis, as well as inerrancy, authority, and the plain sense reading of Scripture, has always completely depended on the life, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, not the other way around. It is a contingent belief, not a foundational one.
Grounding the Gospel
A person need not believe in a mechanical interpretation of Genesis exclusively before they affirm Jesus Christ as Lord, nor afterward either. Especially if someone is new to the faith and needs “spiritual milk” before they can have “solid food”, having been raised in a naturalistic culture but are not naturalists themselves (cf. 1 Peter 2:1-3; Hebrews 5:11-14, 6:1-3, 11). What does this mean? It means this Genesis debate is an in-house dispute and does not necessarily obstruct the repentance of sin and confession of Christ’s testimony in the face of our immediate sinful experiences and fallen reality–––evil, futility, suffering, and death. Nor does one simply fall away from faith by their (mis)understanding of how the sequence of physical creation occurred, especially if they maintain a strong doctrinal reverence for the value structure and truth of Scripture.
Again, this issue runs much deeper than mere science. The average person is, quite frankly, unaffected by the scientific details that are required to understand the debate, nor should a person feel compelled or pressured to believe in something they do not understand that is not necessary to believe. That would be to teach a false pattern of blindly following the “traditions of men” through popular scientific consensus (cf. Mark 7:8). But the average person’s theological framework for understanding the intention of Scripture is affected by moral tone and hasty judgment as well as inconsistent foundational patterns necessary for Christian living and spiritual maturity (cf. NIV 2 Timothy 1:13-14; Romans 6:17-18, 12:2). For what does James tell us? “Mercy triumphs over judgment.” Speak and act toward those as one’s who have been shown mercy, for “judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy.” (James 2:12-13) Our behaviour reflects what we believe. As God has shown us grace, there needs to be grace for spiritual growth[12]. It may not be easy or comfortable, but when did God say it would be? If you show no grace, then, perhaps, you do not truly believe in the power of God’s grace. Let’s not be guilty of leaning on our own understanding.
Making Young Earth Creationism and its supporting scientific evidence the necessary, exclusive foundation of the gospel, one that if not believed indicates unbelief, spiritual weakness, faithlessness, or compromises one’s personal belief in Jesus Christ as Lord, renders the whole gospel a matter of fact, not of faith: “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen….By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” (NKJV Hebrews 11:1-3) So that if a person differs on the all-encompassing, mechanical exactitude of Genesis 1-11, particularly 1:1–2:3, they are somehow a lesser Christian or more “liberal” or imposing pagan ideas or injecting “philosophy” into God’s Word, is to not take the gospel of grace through faith literally enough. This is especially disconcerting because there is enough Scriptural prooftext to suggest the YEC position is not necessarily the true default position and intention of Genesis, such as their view that the world was manifestly perfect like Eden, and for this reason ought not be dogmatized. Young Earth Creationism is a view, not a fact.
In Summary
A tight, rigid, narrow dogmatic view of how the mechanical details of creation occurred, then, can discourage spiritual growth profitable for sanctification and undermine the priority structure of what’s theologically optimal: the Christ-centered gospel of grace. If the historical portion of the gospel depends on the personal gospel, then the gospel per se depends on why a person rejects the historical portion of the gospel and what parts they are rejecting as fully historical for sake of sustaining doctrine (and if they subsequently reject vital doctrine as well, such as the historicity of Adam). In other words, why someone accepts or rejects the details of Genesis 1-11 as fully historical is more important than just affirming nitty gritty facts of how the mechanistic sequence of Genesis occurred. Why? This is inherently a deep, nuanced personal and theological discussion. Is a person’s view built on earthly status, social advantage or peer pressure, blind acceptance of tradition, or is it built on the central and essential values that God has established through Christ: love, hope, grace, mercy, forgiveness, justice, righteousness, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control? (Galatians 5:22-23) Consider; if we are content to disagree on the intimate details of the future, can we not agree to disagree on the fine-tuning of the distant past, so long as the essentials are faithfully sustained? Like Job and our Church fathers before us, we would be wise to have some humility with respect to creation. We weren’t there.
Next Entry
Suffice to say, I’ve run out of space to dig into details on the other extreme. Next entry, I will finish charting the doctrinal boundary lines of creation. I will mainly focus on why and how Evolution can compromise theology, and even discredit the integrity of Scripture through doctrine and discipleship as well as the necessary anchor points of the historical gospel.
Matlock Bobechko | First published on September 27, 2021 on Bible Discovery. Substantive revision October 17, 2022.
[1] Can humans evolve and still be “created in God’s image”? Reason to Believe.
https://reasons.org/question/can-humans-evolve-and-still-be-created-in-gods-image
Stephen C. Meyer, An Introduction to the book Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique. Published on February 1, 2019.
https://www.discovery.org/a/defining-theistic-evolution/
[2] We as disciples, then, are charged with discerning false prophets and teachers, and their teachings of course, by the “fruit” of their ministry. This requires the fruits of patience and forbearance (Galatians 5:22-23), providing time for the “bad fruits” and “good fruits” to grow, and hopefully, God willing, be pruned (Matthew 7:15-19). Especially today, the fruits of the Holy Spirit produced by belief in the personal gospel have become difficult to discern due to technological advancements in how doctrine is distributed: printing press, broadcasts media and television, YouTube, blogs, et cetera. Given our impersonal, private lifestyles here in the West, false teachers can hide behind carefully edited work, veiled by may textbook sound doctrine that hides their true beliefs and behaviour. There’s an old saying in film that “you frame out more than you frame in”, and the same goes here.
[3] Ken Ham, Are We Wrong to Call Out Compromise? Answers in Genesis. Published on January 4, 2021.
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2021/01/04/are-we-wrong-to-call-out-compromise/
[4] Ken Ham, Millions of Years—Are Souls at Stake? When creationists take a strong stand that God created the earth six thousand years ago, they’re often accused of making this a salvation issue. Well, it isn’t a salvation issue—but it is! Answers in Genesis. Published on January 1, 2014.
https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/millions-of-years/are-souls-at-stake/
[5] Creation, Answers in Genesis. https://answersingenesis.org/creation/
[6] The most notable instance of this is in a recent Twitter post by founder of AiG, Ken Ham, who accused, if not, condemned William Lane Craig, an evolutionary creationist, as a false teacher “one of the major problems with much of the church and most Christian institutions”. Ham says, “his pseudo-intellectual arrogance that mocks God and his Word and instead exalts the word of fallible, sinful man above God’s holy, infallible Word. He’s destructive to the church and will have to give account to God for his blatant compromise of God’s Word and for leading many astray….His main thrust is to compromise the pagan religion of evolution/millions of years with God's Word. He is helping atheists undermine the Word of God and capture the minds of generations of people.” Ham ends the post by quoting Jeremiah against false prophets, “Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” declares the LORD” (Jeremiah 23:1).
S. Joshua Swamidass, William Lane Craig: An Exchange with Ken Ham. Peaceful Science. Published on February 15, 2021. https://peacefulscience.org/wlc-responds-ham/
[7] I have several problems with the YEC interpretation that the serpent must have had legs. (1) It completely ignores the ancient view of serpents and its relationship with the spiritual world. (2) From a narrative perspective, it’s useless. It never gets addressed again and it doesn’t get wrapped up at the end in Revelation. If YEC believes Genesis 1-11 is historical narrative authored by God, why would God include a dramatically useless detail that would be of no practical, moral, or spiritual concern to anyone, ever? This view offers no insight or understanding as to why God wanted the snake to lose its legs. It just documents a brute fact that is unprofitable for teaching, reproof, correction and training up in righteousness. (3) Why is the snake punished so harshly as if it is equally as rational, culpable, and responsible as a human made in the image of God? Are they suggesting that a serpent has (or had) volition and understanding equal to an image bearer? Furthermore, why would God not restore the serpent’s legs at the end of Revelation if the snake was, presumably, manipulated, controlled, and used by Satan in the first place? To me, these concerns outweigh the arguments themselves. All this, and more, in an upcoming entry.
[8] Bodie Hodge, for instance, says that to think the serpent did not have legs before the Fall is a “meaningless status” or “philosophy” imposed on Scripture. The word “philosophy” in a YEC social framework is predominately a negative description word used to distance pagan ideas from Christian theology.
https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/garden-of-eden/did-the-serpent-originally-have-legs/
[9] St. Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 6.16 (c. AD 208); Origen, Against Celsus 6.51-61, On First Principles 4.3.1. (c. AD 248); St. Augustine of Hippo, On Genesis: Book 1, 10:20-21, 15:29, 18:37, 19:39. St. Basil, Hexaemeron, Homily 1:6; St. Ambrose, Hexaemeron 10:37; St. John Damascene, De Fide Orthodoxa, book 2:1. Extracted from Interpreting Genesis 1 with the Fathers of the Church by Rev. John Baptist Ku, O.P. Thomistic Evolution.
http://www.thomisticevolution.org/disputed-questions/interpreting-genesis-1-with-the-fathers-of-the-church/
[10] Mark Hartman, The History of the Christian Church About the Interpretation of the Days of Creation (July 2011).
[11] Augustine, On Genesis, Book 1, Chapter 18, No. 37.
[12] Brad Kramer, Famous Christians Who Believed Evolution is Compatible with Christian Faith. BioLogos. Published on August 8, 2018.
https://biologos.org/articles/famous-christians-who-believed-evolution-is-compatible-with-christian-faith
[13] Many young Evangelical Christians today have fallen away from the faith because they were given no grace or room to wrestle with this prevalent issue, even so far as to pit science against faith. Consider the youth, who already struggle with social acceptance, are now trapped between suppressing their beliefs out of fear of being seen as a heretic just for wrestling or rejecting a literal interpretation of Genesis, and their friends at school who are not Christian accept them “as they are”. It can hinder the open vulnerability that sanctification requires.