Disappointed, But Not Surprised

Some time ago, I was asked to do a book review of Persuaded By The Evidence (Eds., Doug Sharp and Dr. Jerry Bergman, ISBN 978-0-89051-545-7, copyright 2008).

I am only several chapters into the book, but something disappointing caught my eye as I finished the first paragraph of the Introduction (pg. 15).  Doug Sharp writes, "... yet each one [that is, the personal testimonies of individuals in this book] has had his faith in God strengthened by scientific evidence for creation."

In view of such a statement, a person needs to ask himself or herself, "What is Christian faith?" and "Is this faith something that is strengthened by scientific evidence?"

To answer those questions, we need to look at how the Bible defines Christian faith.  There we find that:

• The Christian faith involves more than mere knowledge that the true God exists (James 2:19)
• Rather, Christian faith is, simply speaking, trust and certainty (Hebrews 11:1)
• Such faith trusts in what Jesus Christ has done for us and certain of what He promises to us (Acts 16:31)
• Through such faith, we are brought into God's family and into a personal relationship with God (Galatians 3:26)
• Through faith in Christ, we are able to approach God without fear and in confidence (Ephesians 3:12)
• Through faith in what Jesus has done for us, we are now free from God's condemnation (Romans 8:1; Romans 4:3; Philippians 3:8-9)
• And this gift of faith is worked in us through the Gospel promises of Christ (Romans 10:17)

Therefore, a Christian's faith in the Triune God is neither created nor "strengthened by scientific evidence for creation" but only by the promises of God's mercy through Christ.  It might be said that faith is the rope through which we are connected to God, and to all the peace, blessings and certain hope that He promises to us in Christ.

Although it disappoints me when I see someone taking the position stated in this book, it does not surprise me.  I have seen many, many Christian articles on creationism which make the assertion (either explicit or unstated) that our Christian faith is strengthened by, for example, scientific evidence in favor of a young earth.  Such a position is not correct since our Christian faith is strengthened only by the promises of God's mercy to us through Christ.  

Since scientific evidence which seems to support creationism does not strengthen a Christian's faith, then does such scientific evidence as offered by creationism serve any beneficial purpose for the Christian?  Or, is it beneficial for the Christian to even read a book like "Persuaded By The Evidence", since one of its primary tenets (to strengthen one's faith by scientific evidence) is not true?

A book like this can certainly be beneficial to the Christian ... if viewed from the proper perspective.    

First, scientific evidence for God's creation allows Christians to all the more be amazed at our God's creation and to be amazed at His power and wisdom evident in that creation (Psalm 19:1).  

Secondly, this book is worthwhile to the Christian because it gives the reader a different perspective from which he or she might find pertinent and worthwhile arguments against evolution.  For example, I found the second chapter by David Bradbury very enlightening when he presents his case about how the criteria for defining what is empirical science has changed over the years, especially as it applies to Darwinian evolution.  This concept is something which I will need to follow up on at a later date.

I should also add that I appreciate reading the autobiographical sketches that are contained in this book.  There are some names that may be quite familiar to readers who have followed the creationism movement for a while.  

Therefore, even though a Christian's faith is not strengthened by the scientific evidence presented in this book, there is certainly something that may be gained by reading it.

Role of Faith (Todd's Blog ... Again)

Todd C. Wood, in one of his blog entries ( http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/10/nature-of-faith.html ), brings in an important aspect to keep in mind when considering creation vs. evolution -- that is the role of faith (trust/confidence in God's promises).

To quote from Todd's blog, "... I think modern creationists would be much better served if we stopped coddling their every doubt and fear with new "evidence for creation" and instead helped to wean them off evidence altogether. A truly close Christian walk with Jesus should render evidence irrelevant."

Exactly.

I have seen many individuals place their reliance in evidences for Creation(ism) at a higher level than what God says through His Word.

In fact, you can make a rough estimate on how much reliance you are putting in evidences for Creation (as opposed to God's promises/Word) by asking yourself the following: What happens when one of the scientific evidences that I have used as support for Creation(ism) is suddenly shown to be in error by recent scientific findings? Do I sense a sinking feeling in my stomach? Do I question the gift of faith that God gave me? Do I question the sufficiency of the Scriptures? Do I try an justify the priority that I have placed on evidences for creation because such evidences are a (supposedly) necessary part of Christian apologetics? (I'll cover my opinion of the proper role of apologetics in another blog post)

If you have answered "yes," to any one of these questions, then you are putting too much reliance on evidences for Creation and not enough reliance on your Creator's promises to you through His Word (e.g., that His Word is Truth; that His promises are certain).

Like Todd C. Wood, I find far too often in Christian creationist literature that scientific evidences are prioritized to a level higher than God's Word. I cringe when I hear (listening to Ken Ham's presentation at ICC 2008), "if the physical things are not true, then how can we believe the spiritual and moral things." This type of approach leads Christians down a dangerous road that turns faith on its head. To make it clear to the reader of this blog, we (Lutheran Christians) believe the spiritual things (from the Bible) not because we find physical evidences for them but only because God says it they are true.

Personally, I find it very enjoyable to look at God's creation from scientific perspectives to see what He has done and to see how it can be described, scientifically. But that does not mean that the faith which God has given to me finds its basis in such scientific perspectives. This is so is because of 1) the nature of faith (i.e., it lays hold of God's promises to me rather than physical evidence that I apprehend; Hebrews 11:1ff) as well as 2) the nature of science (i.e., its truths and facts are always considered incomplete and therefore tentative).

How old is the earth?

{Revised 11/21/09}

"How old is the earth?" and "When was the earth created?" are two separate questions. The former is a non-theological/scientific question while the latter is a theological indeterminate question.

How one answers these questions seems to be a major defining point among the creationist groups. Both the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) and the Old Earth Creationist (OEC) would give the same respective answer for each question (YEC would say that the answer for both questions is ~6,000 years; OEC would say that the answer for both is 4.65 billion years).

A YEC would infer that because God created the world (usually) 6,000 to 10,000 years years ago, He would therefore need to make the measurable parameters such that they would reflect that timeline. If not, so they say, then "God would be a deceiver." An example of this is the need to make the speed of light such that the time spent en-route from the stars would equate with something on the order of 6,000-10,000 years (changing speeds, etc). Answers in Genesis (AiG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) are examples of groups that hold this view.

An OEC assumes the (current) scientific data for the distances (via cosmic distance ladder) to the farthest stars, multiplies it with the speed of light (distance divided by time) and obtains time since creation. Hugh Ross (Reasons To Believe) is an example of someone who holds this view.

I don't think it a coincidence that both groups appear to be from Reformed backgrounds since Reformed (Zwinglianism/Calvinism and Arminianism) often seem to have a need to provide natural explanations for God's actions/miracles. The Reformed treatment of the Lord's Supper provides a good example of this, where the appearance of what is being received has greater emphasis than Christ's words.

In comparison, a confessional Lutheran would not necessarily need to have the same answer to both questions since we do not have the need to resolve everything the Bible says with our observations of the natural world.

One could make the case that, in some of the miracles performed by Jesus, there seems to be a discontinuity between actual time span experienced by humans and physical changes that Jesus brought about miraculously (which is why we call them miracles). For example, with the wine created by Jesus at the Wedding at Cana (John 2) notice how Jesus' miracle involved an interruption in the normal time line. The fact that the wine appeared "good" to the guests does not conflict with the fact that it was made only a little earlier that same day. There was no deception involved. Jesus spoke and it was so. He made it fully functional and ready-to-go; capturing all the characteristics of an fine wine. (This comparison between the created age of the earth and the wine at Cana differs, however, at least in this respect: the wine was not created out of nothing).

For the Lutheran, an approximate answer to "When was the earth created?" can be obtained by looking at the genealogies in the Bible (some YEC groups try to obtain dates from the Bible that are more specific than can be exegetically obtained; for example, using the Ussher chronology).

A Lutheran will also recognize that, since the Bible describes the created earth and universe as being fully functional but stops short of providing specifics, for example, distances to the stars, the question "How old is the earth?" or "How old does the universe appear?" is a non-theological/scientific one about which we are free to use our Christian freedom (and scientific knowledge) to assess.

These comments are not intended to make a case in favor of either a young earth or an old earth (I will save that for elsewhere). The point that I am making is this: from a confessional Lutheran perspective, an appearance of age (i.e., much longer than the assumed timeline since creation) with respect to some aspects of creation may be theologically acceptable.