Six-day creation reflects a fundamentalist impulse that views human culture and, in particular, science as controlled by a denial of God and of Christian faith. This is a theological error.
For what it’s worth, I believe in six-day-creation and have my undergrad in chemistry. I believe the world was created with the appearance of age (including a fossil record), like Adam—24-hours old and looking 20 or 30-ish. And I’ve had very engaging conversations with folks who aren’t Christians on the topic and don’t think it is the “Christ against Culture” model (articulated by Niebuhr or Carson’s follow up).
While that is an appealing option, I can’t figure out how it meshes with the appearance that cataclysmic events happened long before the current time. For instance, I can understand Adam being created a grown man... but I wouldn’t understand what it would mean if he had a faded scar on his elbow like the one I have on my elbow from falling on gravel when I was 8. I can’t figure out what it means to have supernovas that appear to have happened billions of years ago or craters from meteors that struck millions of years ago.
I don’t know about a scar on his elbow, but I’d wager Adam had a belly button. He had the mark of a cataclysmic event—birth—even though he never had a mom or an umbilical cord. Why would a moon crater be any different than a belly button? There is no reason that God couldn’t have spoken the beauty of a mature creation into existence in six days. In my view, it commends God’s power and love more than the day-age theory.
Joe! I started to type my reply yesterday, and then my computer shut down. So here we go again:
I definitely mean no disrespect to those who hold the view! It's a matter of intellectual consistency in approach. I would see your writing and general approach as engaged and not fundamentalist-reactionary. But, I think the 6-day view, as generally practiced, involves a kind of separation from worldly knowledge and culture that is representative of a "Christ Against Culture" approach.
In particular, even the "appearance of age" view undermines scientific and empirical knowledge, as Stephen aptly points out. It even leads to perceptual skepticism: If the light reaching my eyes at night from a star was never emitted from the star itself, but was merely positioned half-way between there and here at the moment of creation, then by the same token, how can we know that Stephen's scar was really caused by his fall, rather than that God just made it appear that way? And likewise for other examples of knowledge of the past.
I think of the plight of Christians in the fields of archaeology, paleontology, astro-physics, astronomy, geology, and biology, and so on. Adoption of a young-earth view separates them from the human-cultural enterprise of scientific and historical knowledge of such things. Importantly, I don't think the same goes for evolution, on which, more anon.
I think our views on origins should accept input from both empirical observation/science and the Bible. That means, apart from a purportedly scientific kind of flood geology (about which I am dubious), 6-day creation does involve a kind of prioritization of biblical input over an other sources of knowledge. And, for the record, I don't think it is the right reading of Genesis to take the days "literally." I've got the makings of a post about what I think Genesis really does teach, which 6-day creation can seriously distract us from: The divide is not between young earth and old earth (so biblical literalism and spiritual interpretation/theological liberalism). The divide is between a teleological, typological, and theistic worldview and a materialist worldview - Genesis pointing to the former.
For what it’s worth, I believe in six-day-creation and have my undergrad in chemistry. I believe the world was created with the appearance of age (including a fossil record), like Adam—24-hours old and looking 20 or 30-ish. And I’ve had very engaging conversations with folks who aren’t Christians on the topic and don’t think it is the “Christ against Culture” model (articulated by Niebuhr or Carson’s follow up).
While that is an appealing option, I can’t figure out how it meshes with the appearance that cataclysmic events happened long before the current time. For instance, I can understand Adam being created a grown man... but I wouldn’t understand what it would mean if he had a faded scar on his elbow like the one I have on my elbow from falling on gravel when I was 8. I can’t figure out what it means to have supernovas that appear to have happened billions of years ago or craters from meteors that struck millions of years ago.
I don’t know about a scar on his elbow, but I’d wager Adam had a belly button. He had the mark of a cataclysmic event—birth—even though he never had a mom or an umbilical cord. Why would a moon crater be any different than a belly button? There is no reason that God couldn’t have spoken the beauty of a mature creation into existence in six days. In my view, it commends God’s power and love more than the day-age theory.
Joe! I started to type my reply yesterday, and then my computer shut down. So here we go again:
I definitely mean no disrespect to those who hold the view! It's a matter of intellectual consistency in approach. I would see your writing and general approach as engaged and not fundamentalist-reactionary. But, I think the 6-day view, as generally practiced, involves a kind of separation from worldly knowledge and culture that is representative of a "Christ Against Culture" approach.
In particular, even the "appearance of age" view undermines scientific and empirical knowledge, as Stephen aptly points out. It even leads to perceptual skepticism: If the light reaching my eyes at night from a star was never emitted from the star itself, but was merely positioned half-way between there and here at the moment of creation, then by the same token, how can we know that Stephen's scar was really caused by his fall, rather than that God just made it appear that way? And likewise for other examples of knowledge of the past.
I think of the plight of Christians in the fields of archaeology, paleontology, astro-physics, astronomy, geology, and biology, and so on. Adoption of a young-earth view separates them from the human-cultural enterprise of scientific and historical knowledge of such things. Importantly, I don't think the same goes for evolution, on which, more anon.
I think our views on origins should accept input from both empirical observation/science and the Bible. That means, apart from a purportedly scientific kind of flood geology (about which I am dubious), 6-day creation does involve a kind of prioritization of biblical input over an other sources of knowledge. And, for the record, I don't think it is the right reading of Genesis to take the days "literally." I've got the makings of a post about what I think Genesis really does teach, which 6-day creation can seriously distract us from: The divide is not between young earth and old earth (so biblical literalism and spiritual interpretation/theological liberalism). The divide is between a teleological, typological, and theistic worldview and a materialist worldview - Genesis pointing to the former.
Joe, what do you think?