I talked about the Creation Museum a couple weeks ago and my belief that the earth was not created in six literal 24-hour days roughly 6,000 years ago. While writing the post I hopped over to the museum’s website and took the virtual tour to get a better idea of what the place is about.
There are some aspects of the museum I don’t take issue with. Exhibits portraying Biblical stories: no problem. Celebrating God’s creation: no problem. A nice building surrounded by gardens for people to enjoy: no problem.
Nevertheless, I don’t plan to take my boys there. Some of the problems I do have with the museum are serious enough to keep me away.
Human Reason Pitted Against God’s Word?
I was particularly disturbed by how many times I saw “Human Reason” pitted against “God’s Word”.
Is this the message Christians really want to send? We want people to think reason and the Bible are polar opposites? That when you open the Bible you are effectively closing the door on common sense and logic?
Most importantly, is this kind of witness going to bring people to Christ? I personally don’t think so. I think it’s going to backfire. I think it’s already backfiring whenever someone leaves the museum laughing, strengthened in their resolve to reject Christ.
The Theory of Evolution Is Valid, But…
Apes evolve but humans don't?
This tells me the folks at the Creation Museum believe evolution has, in fact, occurred in the earth’s past.
Okay. They’ve just validated the evolutionary process. But next to it, man takes a straight line to the top? As if monkeys evolved but we somehow did not? They are sending conflicting messages here that only make sense if I check my reason at the door. Granted God’s ways don’t have to make sense to me, but I do know He’s a God of order not a God of willy nilly, “This is the natural law today, I think I’ll change it tomorrow.”
(When Galileo told a few Catholics the earth revolves around the sun, they got mad and punished him. Turns out he was right.)
An Old Earth Interpretation of Genesis Destroys the Foundation of the Church?
SHABOOM! KABLAM!
Is the Bible so weak it can’t withstand the notion of an ancient earth? Personally, I find it amazing that God might have set the universe in motion with one big ball of fire, and then orchestrated its development (intelligently) over billions of years. That’s what I call dedication. A dedication that is awe inspiring.
If God did create the universe in six days, that’s awe inspiring for different reasons; however, I can’t help thinking such an interpretation of Genesis might sometimes be more routed in fear than faith.
Dinosaurs + Man
One of the biggest issues I have with the Creation Museum is the idea that dinosaurs walked the earth with man.
Please...don't eat me...
Radiocarbon dating may be flawed, but does that mean we should categorically dismiss it? Perhaps we should not dismiss it, but consider it one piece of the puzzle that helps us understand God’s creation.
I’m not comfortable teaching my boys that dinosaurs walked the earth alongside man. I’m not a scientist but I’ve read enough and looked at enough evidence to conclude otherwise. I can’t ignore good science in favor of a simplistic Biblical interpretation, just because it makes some people “feel better”.
I can’t raise my boys in a bubble either. Sure I can home school them (nothing intrinsically wrong with that), teach them young earth creationism, order supporting educational materials from Answers in Genesis, and take them to the Creation Museum to drive home my point.
But what happens when they start thinking for themselves, start analyzing the data and questioning whether Mom and Dad’s definition of God stands up to reality? If I teach them dinosaurs roamed the earth with men and the earth was created in six literal days and human reason is evil, what happens when they become adults and decide the things I’ve taught them are illogical in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
The Aftermath
Here’s what I imagine happening. First they feel lied to. Second, they begin to view Christianity as a simple-minded faith, one that destroys awe rather than cultivating it. Next, they become so enthralled by what the world teaches that they begin to discount the Bible altogether, concluding Christianity is a mere fairy tale concocted by people who are afraid to leave any questions unanswered.
I’ve seen this scenario happen and I don’t want it to happen to my boys.
As Christians, objectivity is important. Science is important. Weighing scientific evidence against Biblical evidence is important. Allowing science to shape our understanding of the Bible is important. None of this means God’s word is flawed.
It means our knowledge of His creation is growing and changing. If God dictated Genesis today, it might read far differently. Why? Because we have evolved to a place where we are able to understand his creation with greater intricacy.
Now, is our basic sinful nature any different than it’s ever been? Are we evolving spiritually toward some peaceful planetary utopia? Uh. No.
We are still flawed, lost, and in need of a savior to reconcile us with God. The Bible tells us how reconciliation is achieved. Alongside, we find many universal truths. Truths that don’t evolve, but are the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
In conclusion, if I were to rate the Creation Museum on a five point scale (even though I haven’t been there…yeah, I know), I would give it two stars. One star for the pretty building and the grounds. One star for the earnestness of those who financially support the museum.
Conviction is good. Trying to squelch other opinions on non “heaven or hell” issues: not so good.
I know many people have gone to, enjoyed, and are supportive of the Creation Museum, so… Am I being to hard on the place? What do you think of the scientific claims made there? Are they reasonable, or over the top?
August 1, 2011, 2:09 pm
I grow uncomfortable with anyone who lacks the humility to say, “I don’t know everything… maybe they know something I don’t”. Both the ultra-religious and the ultra-atheistic seem to have a hefty dose of such pride, where their conclusions are so strong it shapes how they see the evidence. Either way its wrong. Science and religion can fit together like gears… they are both expressions of the truth. But for that to happen we’ve got to be able look at how both can compliment each other. Great post!!!
August 2, 2011, 5:31 pm
Thanks for stopping Edward! 🙂 I was a little nervous to post this one, because so many speak highly of the Creation Museum. I don’t fault anyone for enjoying their experience there. However, the place has always rubbed me the wrong way a bit, and I’ve kept my opinion to myself in Christian circles because I was afraid people would look at me like I have 3 eyeballs and 2 noses.
August 2, 2011, 7:14 pm
The Bible doesn’t explicitly say how old the earth is. Why people assume it does is beyond me. An unknowable number of years transpired between Genesis and Exodus–so where did Christians find this magical number of 6,000? Right–it’s an interpretation, or a theory. While I think clinging to a young earth theory is silly, I wouldn’t be so quick to discount the evidence at the creation museum. I’ve never been there, but I do know creation scientists are not fools and many do not necessarily believe in a young earth, but many do believe in the possibility of humans and dinosaurs coexisting. Dinosaurs are, after all, just large reptiles. And you also have to remember that not all creationists (or intelligent design scientists) believe in the inerrant word of God, but rather in an intelligent creator that may or may not be the God of the Bible. Therefore, they aren’t looking for a feel-good theory that matches with their interpretation of the Bible. They are looking at scientific evidence and questioning the official stories.
As a home-school mom, I believe in teaching my children to question everything. If the age of the earth isn’t in the Bible, they don’t have to believe in a young earth. Neither do they have to believe the lies and obfuscations of the mainstream world of science. The most important skill to pass on to your children is critical thinking. That will enable them to separate fact from fiction, to separate the salvation of Christ from these kinds of discussion–because, ultimately, humans, even those w/ PhD’s, will never fully understand how God brought the universe into existence.
August 3, 2011, 11:00 am
I didn’t think the Creation Museum discounted the old earth theory, but when I looked at the pictures online and read up on it, it seems they are very much trying to stuff all of creation into a short time span. Also, they’ve built their arguments on the idea that the great flood covered the whole earth, and there is plenty of convincing arguments for a local or regional flood instead. So, right there, if they are wrong about the global flood, much of their science is discounted.
I’m more in line with Intelligent Design folks, be they religious or non-religious. There’s an abundance of scientific evidence pointing to the fact that we aren’t here by chance. The scientists stuck in what I would call the old Darwinian theory are sadly missing out on a great hope that says we are designed for life not death. Especially in terms of disease. If a doctor looks at the body as a chaotic mess, here by mere chance, they are going to apply band aids to diseases, nothing more. The doctor who believes the human body was designed to fight tooth and nail for life will find ways to harness that, remove obstacles, and let the body get on with healing itself. Kind of going on a tangent there. But it goes to show how serious the implications are if scientists refuse to look at all the evidence with an open mind. It’s dangerous too for the believer to ignore evidence that was gathered over many years, with extreme patience and attention detail, that has been cross checked and cross referenced repeatedly along the way.
But, I might be preaching to the choir. 🙂
August 3, 2011, 8:49 pm
Yes, you probably are preaching to the choir. 🙂 I’ve never actually been to the creation museum. But like you, I tend to be more in line with the Intelligent Design scientists. They seem less inclined to bend evidence to fit a pseudo biblical model.
August 4, 2011, 12:35 pm
This puts you in good stead with about 90% of Christians who believe that deference should be given to the secular theories.
I’m the son of a veterinarian, my family are full of medical professionals, and I somehow managed a degree (as did every member of my family) in the sciences from a secular school without ever once being required to demonstrate a matter of history (i.e. the age of the earth. Science’s dirty little secret: because of its core principle, it can’t tell you what happened in the past. Not even yesterday. It can only anticipate what will or should happen given certain circumstances.) in order to practice.
I don’t want to stir anything up, I really don’t, but I’d like to add a few thoughts.
1) The 6 days in Genesis are literal days from the plainest reading of the text. Believing otherwise requires, at a very minimum, that concepts like the origin of sin, the prophecy fortelling Christ’s advent and victory, God’s judgment, etc. etc. are likewise not literal. When does “day” mean “day?” Was Jonah not in the belly of the fish for three days? If those days aren’t literal, was Christ then, not literally dead for three days, too? Day is an important concept in the bible, and if day doesn’t mean day in Genesis, it has implications for the entire theology.
2) Human reason is frequently and often pitted against God’s Word, by God’s Word itself. I can think, off the top of my head (and I’m no bible scholar) of three or four very clear passages where God makes plain that not only is his reason and word different (and far superior) to man’s reason, but that human reason is dark and often declares God to be a fool. There is nothing unbiblical or anti-intellectual about distinguishing between human reason and God’s Word. Where I think that placard errs is not in distinguishing the two but in equating an interpretation of the Word with the actual Word.
3) You are confusing evolution with the Theory of Evolution By (probable) Natural Selection (and other means). No creationist denies evolution – after all many dog breeders are creationists! Evolution simply means a gradual change in the breed (or kind). In other words, information can be removed (selected out) of animal groups so that the descendants of that group have desirable traits. Eventually, enough information is eliminated so that you have a “new” breed.
So: monkeys can “evolve” into other monkeys. Men can “evolve” into other men. There are many examples of evolution by non-natural selection in the Bible, in fact: many of the passages about sheep breeding, for example, demonstrate how the concept of, for example, evolving your flock to improve it, is a basic scientific principle supported by the Word (or, more accurately, vice versa.)
But the so called descent of Man is simply an untestable myth. In other words, not even hardcore evolutionary scientists believe that, for example fish slowly and gradually transformed into salamanders, which developed into other species and so on. The creation museum divides the creatures by their kind and demonstrates how evolution functions, but that it is not a mechanism of origins.
4) Radiocarbon dating is not used to determine the ages of dinosaurs. Radiocarbon dating is only (vaguely) accurate for a few thousand years, and even then, not really. Very new things test as thousands of years old using radiocarbon dating. Very old things test as new. It is not a scientific method of dating material – it is a scientific method of determining a range at which an unknown quantity possibly decayed.
Fossil ages are determined by circular logic. There is a reasonable theory that fossil layers were laid down in order over very long periods of time. The lower the layer, the older the (in this case) dinosaur. Here’s the problem: sometimes known “old” dinosaurs show up in the upper layer, and known “new” ones in the lower. Guess what happens? The anthropologist decides that the layers somehow got mixed up!
5) As a kid who was raised secular, intellectual and full-on evolutionist, I can tell you that I didn’t start “thinking for myself” until I started listening to the Word. A person who thinks for himself can punch logical holes through the cultural beliefs and “scientific” proposals of this age a mile wide. Believing the teaching of creationism to be some sort of a “bubble” is probably mistaken. It is a competing theory, and it’s loaded with a hundred more sound apologies than its alternative.
6) My final question is this: why on earth do we allow (or require) the philosophical subset of science to attempt to address an issue which is very obviously something in the realm of history? Evolution should not be taught in science class, nor should creationism. They should be taught in world history. Science, by its own core admission, can’t predict the past.
August 4, 2011, 5:58 pm
No worries. Discussion is good.
I’m no scientist, which I’ve said before, heh heh, thus my cluelessness about radiocarbon dating–I just know it’s validity seems to be debated.
Very interesting thoughts. Regarding the “day”, good points, though I’d have to study the Hebrew. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time for that. Although, I have my opinion that the first books of the Bible contain much symbolism and that comparing them to the New Testament is like comparing apples and oranges. The Bible is diverse and God uses many different techniues to convey his truths.
I still don’t get the monkey versus man diagram, but I concede these things aren’t knowable, we can only speculate. My speculation takes me away from the notion of a global flood, and a regional flood would discount the diagram anyway.
Hmmm. Never thought about it as being more appropriate for history classes. I’m not sure I can argue with that.
Thanks for stopping by and joining into the conversation. You got me thinking.
August 5, 2011, 7:26 am
I mean for this to be helpful, since you don’t have the time to do a study of the word “day” in Genesis, since you don’t have the time, but skip it if it is annoying.
The Hebrew word in Genesis is “yom.” It means the same as the English “day.”
So, you can say “Back in the day I worked seven days a week.” You can replace “yom” there for both meanings of the word.
I think the key thing is that the writer of Genesis goes out of his way to demonstrate that the 6 days are straightforward days. Note that he even defines it: “Morning and Evening, the first day” and so on. Also, I can’t think of any instance where “day” is preceded by a number (3rd day, 6 days, etc) where it doesn’t mean a 24-hour day.
Considering that the concept of a seven day week (which, it should be noted, has no grounding in the natural world – the year is based on the earth’s orbit around the sun, the day is based on the earth’s rotation, but the week, with a Sabbath: where did that come from?) is based in Genesis, the plainest reading of the text is that the 7 days in Genesis have always most plainly been understood as regular (if supernatural) days.
I disagree that New Testament and Old Testament are apples and oranges. I see no clues in the text of Genesis that indicate I should dismiss the earth’s Carpenter’s testimony of a global flood as symbolic, while I should take the account of a carpenter’s son who raised Lazarus from the dead.
The miracle worker affirmed the historicity of the Old Testament. If he did not, how are we to believe that New Testament, with its wild, “unscientific” stories of resurrection, healing, ascension, language translation.
If I can’t believe Babel, how can I believe Pentecost? If I can’t believe creation, how can I believe in a new creation? If I can’t accept Jonah, how can I accept the three days? Are the days of David real, but the days of his forefather Noah fairy tales? When do I start believing the stories of the Bible as literal things that happened, instead of symbolic forerunners of the Truth? What is so special about the New Testament that demands I swallow, wholesale, the miraculous stories that run like rabbits through its narratives, while rejecting as mere literary symbolism, the strikingly similar stories of the Old Testament?
I’m probably weird (scratch that – I’m quite certainly weird), but I have a lot easier time grasping that an all-powerful God made something as small as the earth in six days than I do believing that a perfectly physical, undead Jesus could pass through locked doors and eat fish – in open defiance of the apparent physical “laws” laid down by his Father. Can you help me understand how the different texts (say, Genesis and St. Luke) indicate that their miracles are to be interpreted differently – one symbolically, the other literally?
Please let me know the minute I get annoying. You won’t hurt my feelings.
August 5, 2011, 7:16 pm
You are clearly more well versed in Hebrew than I am, so you’ve given me things to think about. It is something I’d like to study, but alas, two little boys and two jobs make it difficult.
As for the apples and oranges, I think we are coming at it from different angles. I had a comment drafted up, but it got rather long, so I’ve turned it into a blog post. Check back Monday if you have the time. 🙂
August 4, 2011, 7:48 pm
Jessica
Great post. I know you may feel overwhelmed by science, but it is not a given that the creation day is a literal 24 hours. There are many Christians who believe otherwise, including such people as Rick Warren, Ravi Zacharias, J. P. Moreland, Dr. Bill Craig, and, of course St. Augustine. My problem with all of the different points of view is the venom and hatred that some camps of creationists have toward another. This argument should be kept within the Christian community. But, it is aired in public especially whenever someone challenges evolution in a school district. The fight among creationists is highlighted and Christians look petty and the naturalists look smart and above the fray.
I have studied all the forms of creationism and I am familiar with them so that as an apologist, I can allow the Holy Spirit to show me which form of creationism is most appropriate when a non-believer or skeptic asks questions. We can’t all be right. But, we can all be humble and honest that there is more than one way to interpret the days and not violate inerrancy of the Bible. And that did not come from me. It came from the 1979 International Congress on Biblical Inerrancy.
Thanks for your post. It is a discussion that many Christians should have. I have always maintained we should know what we believe and why we believe it so that we can fulfill 1 Peter 3:15. Always be prepared to give an answer for the hope that is within you and do so with GENTLENESS and RESPECT!
August 5, 2011, 7:22 pm
Ravi Zacharias is someone I highly admire, so I’m happy to be in his company.
I think you’re right, there’s no need for Christians to fight about it. I see no problems discussing, because it might help people outside the church get past some stereotypes they may have. As Christians, we don’t agree on all of the (what I would call) peripherals, but it’s the core values (God incarnate, ultimate sacrifice, redemption, saved by grace) that bind us into one body.
August 5, 2011, 11:05 am
There is one thing that we need to make clear here. Biblical Hebrew has fewer words in it when compared to English. Words in Hebrew, therefore, have multiple meanings. The Hebrew word “yom” has four main meanings: one day, a part of a day, the daytime portion of a day, or a long and finite period of time. The words translated “evening” and “morning” in Genesis can also mean “ending” and “beginning.” There is good interpretative grounds for saying that each creation “day” was a long but finite period of time.
Jessica, there are plenty of resources on the website of Reasons To Believe (www.reasons.org) to help in your quest to understand more about creation and science.
August 5, 2011, 2:17 pm
I have to disagree on the definitions you offer, but on this point only: context defines “yom.” In the opening chapters of Genesis, one simply can’t translate “yom” to mean three of the four definitions you list. One key (of several) is in the number that is associated with “yom.”
In other words, if you say “first yom” or “second yom” the adjective describing “yom” limits the definition. “Day” in English has multiple meanings as well – it can mean “a time” (in my granpappy’s day) or it can mean a period of time (it took me all day to get that done) or it can mean a 24-hour period of time. Heck, its plural can mean years, decades or longer! (The days of Noah.)
It is not significantly different from “yom” in that regard.
But, as soon as I say “The first day, I went fishing. The second day, I went hiking.” the looser definitions of “day” fall away. I’m speaking of something that happened during a defined 24-hour period.
It is identical in Genesis.
Searching hard for alternate interpretations is wholly unnecessary. The book quite clearly and simply says six literal 24-hour periods. Now, from a metapoetic position, one may interpret that day as symbolic, or as a myth-story, but it really makes no sense, whatsoever, to pretend that “yom” means anything other than what it plainly means in Hebrew.
In other words, when I read the myth of Hercules 5th labor, where he cleans thousands of stables, single-handedly, in “one day,” I’m not tempted to interpret the Greek word for day to mean anything other than the plain meaning. Hercules did something impossible in a normal 24-hour day. I don’t have to warp or bend the text, or look for symbols. Day means day.
External to the document, I am free to recognize that the 5th labor of Hercules likely did not happen in real life. I can conjecture that the story is fiction, and has a deeper meaning to convey.
But there’s no need to fuss with the plain reading. In Genesis, the 1st Day is just that. A day. Whether you want to stand external to the Word and say, “Well, God doesn’t intend for us to take that story literally – it is a form of poetry designed to create an image in our minds, to inspire us to understand that he is the maker of all things…etc.” or even “Genesis is a word picture for us to understand prehistoric events that our minds are to finite to comprehend” that’s a different issue.
But when it comes to interpretation, the best and likely only interpretation of “yom” in Genesis is as “a 24-hour day.” Conventional reason, and not an insignificant number of scholars, have it (predictably) wrong.
August 5, 2011, 2:43 pm
…but I should add, not most rabbinical scholars.
There is, after all a very good reason why, by the Jewish calendar, we are living in the year 5,771, and it is very much based on the interpretation of “yom” in the straightforward way, and has been such for millenia.
August 5, 2011, 7:10 pm
‘Well, God doesn’t intend for us to take that story literally – it is a form of poetry designed to create an image in our minds, to inspire us to understand that he is the maker of all things…etc.” or even “Genesis is a word picture for us to understand prehistoric events that our minds are to finite to comprehend” that’s a different issue.’
Well…yeah…
August 8, 2011, 1:41 am
August 8, 2011, 3:37 am