Fluttering Carefully

I recently initiated a conversation with a scientist by email. He stated on his site that he believes in an old earth and evolution and is an orthodox Christian. I offered that there is a much easier way to resolve the issue of a seeming old earth in light of the Genesis account of creation. To be clear, I disagree with the notion that it is somehow necessary for salvation to apprehend every doctrine of Scripture to be saved, but I think that it is incumbent upon us to believe those things that are plainly taught as they are presented, and it is imperative to understand the gospel aright.

First, I wrote him explaining that I did not believe in an old earth. I offered an explanation that I think is both reasonable and logical given the tenor and context of the passage. That said, here is a modified portion of that conversation:

Adam and Eve were adults when God created them. He was able to name all the animals and they worked in the garden, understood and reasoned both with God and the serpent, etc. There is no scientific evidence for a young earth. The scientific evidence is for an old earth. but the reason from scripture is that God created the earth not in infancy, but in maturity. [Furthermore, it seems illogical that the earth could have performed all those things necessary to sustain human and other life if it had not been created in adulthood.] You cannot prove it. If you could, it would not be of faith, and we would receive less blessings by it. Consider, Jesus told Thomas (John 20.29), blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. Likewise, the preamble to the “hall of faith” in Hebrews 11:

¹ Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

² For by it the elders obtained a good report.

³ Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

⁴ By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

⁵ By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

⁶ But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

I don’t believe in some fundamentalist notion of checking your brain at the door. But I do believe that it is apprehended by faith, not “so-called science (1Tim 6.20).”

I believe that all things were created, in that respect, in an adult form. All the ‘suns’ and stars and satellites and planets. All the animals, all the plants, they were all mature and able to reproduce and do those things for which they were intended at the point they were created.

In his response, he said that he thought that for God to create the earth and universe in maturity was deceptive. To which I responded:

I think that the idea that it is deceptive is strange, considering that if a person did take [Genesis 1] at face value (since [his view seems to be that] it would be acceptable for a Christian to take either [a literal or symbolic/hyperbolic] view), they would logically assume that Adam was mature at creation, and so was Eve. [Likewise,] the plants produced fruit, etc., [which proved] their maturity (in the third day: he created plants and herbs which made seeds after their kind—Gen 1.11-13). Rather, within a literal understanding—which is the most plain and likely historical understanding—it seems only logical that all things were created in their maturity.

…It is not necessarily a requisite that a man believe the creation account for salvation, and further it is not saving in itself to believe it. Consider that the thief on the cross may not have understood much about the earth’s origins, and the Pharisees held much orthodoxy, but not in a saving way. However, that passage does not seem to be hyperbolic, consider the use of the words evening and morning and day, they do not seem to be indicative of ages, etc. I know that passages in the Scripture are figurative: the wings of God (metaphor), the anger of God (anthropomorphism), all Judea came to see Christ (hyperbole), etc. That passage does not, however, seem to use those or other similar literary devices [specific to day-ages, etc.].

It seems also likely that without our current scientific understanding it would have been impossible for saints of old—like Abraham and David and Mary—to have held a consistent orthodox view of our earth’s creation that was internally, scientifically consistent. So, which is stranger? That God would create the earth in maturity, or that it would take 5800 years for a Christian to comprehend the nature and extent of God’s creative work?

God was pleased as it says in the scriptures to confound the wisdom of the wise. Consider:

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; (1 Co 10.27)

Jesus thanked God for hiding things from the wise:

In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight. (Luke 10.21)

Would it be unlawful for God to keep people from understanding these things?

I will try to develop this more later. While I would not hold that you must believe the way I do about the issue of the mature earth, I would say that you should always believe God rather than man, and man’s so-called science, when they conflict, because they will.