The 'Creation' episode delves into the intriguing intersection of science and faith. Do they truly conflict when discussing the origins of life? Whether you've faced these questions in school or elsewhere, join us as Dr. Fazale Rana unpacks various creation theories that harmoniously blend scientific understanding with scriptural insights. A must-listen for anyone navigating the intricate dance between science and Genesis! Biochemist Dr. Fazale “Fuz” Rana is president, CEO, and senior scholar of Reasons to Believe, an organization dedicated to communicating the powerful scientific case for Christianity. His books include Humans 2.0, The Cell’s Design, and Fit for a Purpose. reasons.org
becomingoutlaws.com
00:00:00
When they're sitting in biology, they think that my faith depends
00:00:03
on this and I'm choosing God or I'm walking away from them.
00:00:08
And my intelligent mind says some of this seems legit and
00:00:12
it's like a black and white choice.
00:00:14
And I would say to anybody listening, you know, if it's not
00:00:19
you, you know, students, you have kids, you have nieces and
00:00:23
nephews or friends in school, All of them are challenged with
00:00:27
us at some point. And I would share it with them
00:00:29
just so they can hear Doctor Rana's words that there's other
00:00:33
choices to look into outside the classroom.
00:00:35
And then these words is your faith does not depend on your
00:00:40
view of creation. You can be 100% wrong on
00:00:43
creation. You don't have to sacrifice your
00:00:46
relationship with Christ or Gavin among the outlaws.
00:00:50
He said Come follow me. People from all walks alive
00:00:54
since have been becoming outlaws.
00:01:00
Welcome to another episode of Becoming Outlaws podcast, which
00:01:04
engages celebrities, scholars, and diverse voices and candid
00:01:08
conversations about following Jesus, defying societal norms,
00:01:13
and exploring profound and sometimes not so profound
00:01:16
questions of faith. In today's episode, we're going
00:01:20
to hit some questions of creation.
00:01:23
With the help of a guest, we're going to give an overview of
00:01:26
what the predominant views are in this area.
00:01:29
It's a hot topic in Christian culture with heated debates
00:01:32
sometimes sometimes pointing the finger and claiming the other
00:01:35
groups, not even Christian, come on people.
00:01:37
So we're going to see what other people believe or what some of
00:01:40
the views are. Maybe you've thought about it,
00:01:42
maybe you haven't. But I think I always feel like
00:01:45
and most people feel if we don't reflect on history, we are
00:01:49
liable to repeat it. So I'll tell you a little
00:01:52
history story to give us the mindset before going into these
00:01:56
different views. So this is true story.
00:01:59
In the 1600s, the church at that time had a predominant view that
00:02:04
the earth was stationary and the center of the universe.
00:02:10
This was not based on science, but it was based on scripture.
00:02:13
It was based on Psalms 104, chapter 104, verse five that
00:02:19
states you fix the earth on its foundation so it can never be
00:02:23
shaken. Well, Galileo at that time was
00:02:29
really convicted of heresy by the church because he was
00:02:33
claiming that Earth was not stationary and that actually the
00:02:39
sun was stationary and plans were rotating around it.
00:02:44
He was considered a heretic and he was put under house arrest
00:02:46
until his death and it wasn't until 1990 two 1992 from the
00:02:52
1600s when Pope John Paul the 2nd admitted the Church was
00:02:56
wrong and Galileo was in fact correct.
00:03:01
The scripture verse is true in what it was intended to mean,
00:03:07
but not meant to be stated as a literal scientific fact.
00:03:11
Science and faith should never be at odds.
00:03:14
Our faith that that we can agree on for sure is that God created
00:03:18
everything, and science is the discovery of how everything
00:03:24
works that God created. If science doesn't seem to line
00:03:29
up with scripture, the science is off.
00:03:33
Or we have to have the humility to back up and maybe we're off
00:03:37
and perhaps we misread scripture.
00:03:41
I think that's how we should approach these topics that are
00:03:44
not crucial to our salvation anyway.
00:03:46
In the areas that God wasn't that clear on, there's a little
00:03:50
room for mystery here. But to help us along is we're
00:03:53
welcoming back Doctor Rana. He says.
00:03:56
I can call him Fuzz. I'm really going to try, but I
00:03:59
have a hard time. Doctor Rana is a biochemist.
00:04:04
He's a president and CEO and the senior scholar of reasons to
00:04:08
believe. It's an organization dedicated
00:04:11
to communicating the proofs and the case for Christianity.
00:04:15
His books include Humans 2.0, The Cells, Design and Fit for a
00:04:21
Purpose and you may recall and if not you should go back and
00:04:24
watch it. We've had him on before about
00:04:26
his book The Cells Design, and that episode was called What the
00:04:29
Cell and it was pretty engaging. Welcome back, Fuzz.
00:04:35
Ken, thanks for having me. Sure.
00:04:38
I was looking forward to this. You guys are always fun.
00:04:40
You're fun. I love having Doctor Ross on.
00:04:44
You guys are hard to keep up with though, but I I do my best.
00:04:48
So let's start. Let's move through this pretty
00:04:49
quick, because I'd like to get through several.
00:04:54
This one I know if you really have to spend that much time on
00:04:56
because most people would know what this is, right?
00:04:59
Naturalistic evolution What's What's the prominent idea behind
00:05:04
that? Yeah, well the the view here is
00:05:06
that the the origin and the history and the design of living
00:05:11
organisms. Are the product of a of a
00:05:14
mechanistic evolutionary process, and the the idea behind
00:05:20
this view is that there really isn't a fundamental purpose or a
00:05:26
fundamental end goal of the evolutionary process.
00:05:30
It is a unguided, undirected process that is sometimes
00:05:35
referred to as being historically contingent, meaning
00:05:38
that it it's predicated on a sequence of chance events.
00:05:42
And that if you rewind the tape of line life and let evolution
00:05:46
run again, the likely outcome is going to be very different every
00:05:50
time because again, it's the likelihood of repeating those.
00:05:54
The exact sequence of chance events is extremely remote.
00:05:58
So this is a, you know, a a model that is, you know, really
00:06:04
the prevalent view of within the scientific community.
00:06:08
And there are some people who hold this view who would argue
00:06:11
that naturalistic evolution makes belief in God, you know,
00:06:15
virtually impossible. Others would argue that that
00:06:19
that naturalistic evolution is really an agnostic on whether or
00:06:23
not God exists. But even if God exists, He's and
00:06:28
is responsible for evolution, it's very clear that there's no
00:06:33
real direction that the evolutionary process is taking.
00:06:38
So that would be this view in a in a nutshell.
00:06:41
And that's what we would call more people be familiar with
00:06:43
just Darwinism. Yeah, although we want to be
00:06:47
careful about using the term Darwinism because, believe it or
00:06:50
not, most evolutionary biologists today are strictly
00:06:53
speaking not Darwinist, meaning that Darwin's specific ideas
00:06:58
about evolution are have been supplanted by a much more
00:07:03
diverse. And sophisticated collection of
00:07:07
ideas as to how the evolutionary process transpires.
00:07:12
So oftentimes people will talk about Darwinian evolution or
00:07:16
Neodarwinian evolution. But technically speaking, my
00:07:20
experiences today evolutionary biology has really moved beyond,
00:07:25
far beyond Darwin's original concepts.
00:07:30
And I'm not thinking about the the terms on the top of my head,
00:07:34
but there is room for the church sometimes just rejects evolution
00:07:38
completely. When then how did we all end up
00:07:42
with different skin tones and there's different species of
00:07:45
animals. So what's the term that we do?
00:07:49
You almost hate to use the word evolve.
00:07:50
It's become so negative, negative, but expands that the
00:07:54
world's always expanding life. Yeah.
00:07:57
You know, and and I'm oftentimes, I'm an old Earth
00:07:59
creationist and I'm oftentimes labeled as anti evolution.
00:08:03
But towards your question, I like to think about evolution by
00:08:08
thinking about different categories of evolutionary
00:08:10
change. So what you're referring to
00:08:13
would be sometimes called microevolution, or sometimes
00:08:17
people like to use the term adaptation.
00:08:19
That's what I was thinking of. Involve essentially variation
00:08:22
that takes place within a species.
00:08:25
In response usually to changes in the environment, let's say,
00:08:28
so that the change in the the wing color of the peppered moth
00:08:33
in response to pollutants in the environment would be an example
00:08:36
of microevolution, which is a form of evolution that I'm
00:08:40
completely comfortable with of course.
00:08:43
And then the next level would be speciation where the same
00:08:47
mechanisms operate. In such a way that one species
00:08:53
will evolve to give rise to sister species.
00:08:56
So another example of this from a textbook would be the
00:08:59
Galapagos finches. That's an example of speciation.
00:09:02
Again, I don't have any issue with that.
00:09:05
That's very clearly something well established.
00:09:08
Another category that I think is well established would be
00:09:11
evolution happening with microorganisms.
00:09:14
Bacteria acquire antibiotic resistance.
00:09:18
Now the precise mechanism that of that is complex, but that is
00:09:23
again a a a well documented form of evolution.
00:09:28
You know, where I think there's a basis for skepticism from a
00:09:32
scientific perspective would be what would be called chemical
00:09:35
evolution, the idea that molecules could self organize
00:09:39
into cells. And I'm also skeptical about.
00:09:42
The about facets of macro evolution where one species, one
00:09:47
major group gives rise to another major group, that's
00:09:50
another place where I don't think the scientific data is as
00:09:54
strong in support of that notion as possible.
00:09:57
So the point that you're raising that I think is really important
00:10:01
is for people to ask the question what is actually being
00:10:05
referred to with respect to micro evolution or with respect
00:10:09
to evolution and so? Even people that are skeptical
00:10:14
about aspects of the evolutionary paradigm do indeed
00:10:17
accept portions of even, you know, naturalistic mechanisms
00:10:23
for evolution. So is this a simplistic way to
00:10:25
look at it? For us lay people is there's the
00:10:31
microevolution which is living things evolving into other
00:10:35
things as opposed to. I'm going to go ahead and say
00:10:38
Darwinian evolution as he is here for me.
00:10:40
But naturalistic evolution which comes from a everyone comes from
00:10:43
a common ancestry which goes back to apes, which goes all the
00:10:48
way back to an original amoeba or whatever.
00:10:51
That's the difference and origin of life.
00:10:55
Doesn't Darwinism not explain even if evolution was true in
00:10:59
origin of life? Yeah, and this is something
00:11:03
that, you know, people will debate, which is?
00:11:08
You know, is evolutionary theory really addressing the origin of
00:11:11
life? And a lot of people say no, it
00:11:13
really isn't, it's really addressing what happens after
00:11:16
life originates. I wouldn't agree with that
00:11:19
entirely, simply because I I think if you're adopting A
00:11:24
strictly naturalistic model for evolution, then there is a
00:11:28
continuum between the molecules on the early earth and the
00:11:33
emergence of the very first cell and.
00:11:36
The evolutionary history that proceeds afterwards, where you
00:11:39
draw the line, becomes largely arbitrary, right?
00:11:43
And so, and also within what you might call the evolutionary
00:11:47
paradigm. Indeed, that model does claim
00:11:52
that even the origin of life is through some kind of
00:11:55
evolutionary, naturalistic, mechanistic process.
00:12:00
But you know, to be fair, there are people that are that do
00:12:03
really try to separate or distinguish those two areas.
00:12:07
And in your point also about essentially it's called
00:12:11
universal common descent. That's very much part of
00:12:15
naturalistic evolution is that, you know, everything.
00:12:18
Ultimately traces its origin back to what's called the last
00:12:21
universal common ancestor, which is a single celled Organism that
00:12:26
presumably anchors the evolutionary tree of life.
00:12:30
So you might refer to it as Scuds to fuzz evolution, if you
00:12:34
will, right? You know, but but that's really
00:12:38
very much endemic in naturalistic evolution.
00:12:41
Whereas somebody like me who has some skepticism about evolution
00:12:46
would refer to it as limited common dissent, where I do see
00:12:52
again some evolutionary ancestry in the in the history of life.
00:12:58
But that it's limited. It's not universal, right?
00:13:03
This would be a good transition into evolutionary creationism.
00:13:07
So let me go into that by asking this question.
00:13:11
Maybe it's more of a philosophical question, I don't
00:13:13
know. But they go hand in hand.
00:13:16
So with the atheist comics. So we we're going to go into
00:13:20
what you'll explain the concepts of groups of Christians that
00:13:23
believe evolution is correct by science, but it wasn't random
00:13:29
that that's the way God. God initiated the life and he
00:13:33
oversaw this evolutionary process, so God's involved, but
00:13:39
would you say the difference between the atheist view of
00:13:43
evolution and the Christian view of evolution or any creation
00:13:47
comes at however the first life came about.
00:13:52
Was it a Big Bang or was it this molecule or me?
00:13:55
But whatever that if it formed with no purpose, just random
00:14:01
circumstance chance, then everything that has happened has
00:14:05
been kind of random circumstantial and we all then
00:14:12
if you have a purposeless creation, our lives ultimately
00:14:16
are purposeless and don't have meaning.
00:14:19
And that's atheist. If you take that God created in
00:14:25
six days, God created in millions of years, billions of
00:14:29
years, or God created whose evolutionary process?
00:14:31
Whatever. If you start with God, or if you
00:14:36
start with at all, that creation has a purpose.
00:14:39
You don't just start without God for a minute.
00:14:42
Something initiated with purpose and intent then it implies at
00:14:49
least something outside of nature with intelligence
00:14:54
created, something with purpose. Therefore all of creation has
00:14:58
purpose and then every one of us has purpose and meaning in our
00:15:01
lives. And to me that's the biggest
00:15:05
difference in how the Bible starts is in the beginning God
00:15:09
created and that just means everything or nothing.
00:15:16
Yeah, and and so you know. The the view that you're
00:15:19
referring to would be sometimes called theistic evolution, a
00:15:23
more recent term that's I see used as evolutionary creation.
00:15:29
So these are two roughly equivalent terms, and the the
00:15:34
bottom line with these, this perspective argues, is that
00:15:38
evolution, the evolutionary process, was designed by God,
00:15:42
and that God is using evolution as a means to create now.
00:15:46
It's really a spectrum of views. There's not a single viewpoint
00:15:50
underneath this umbrella. Some people would say you know
00:15:54
God created the evolutionary process and let it run and it
00:15:58
was the outcome was random and that eventually some creature
00:16:03
emerges humans that has the the intellectual capacity to enter
00:16:08
into a relationship with God and.
00:16:11
Then God somehow supernaturally intervenes to create a spirit in
00:16:16
in that creature. That's one view.
00:16:18
Others would say God is intimately at work in the
00:16:22
evolutionary process. It's nothing is random.
00:16:25
He's actively at work orchestrating the evolutionary
00:16:29
history of life. The problem is that.
00:16:34
There's nothing in the nature of the evolutionary mechanism that
00:16:37
suggests it's actually a mechanism that has purpose.
00:16:41
As I said, most evolutionary biologists see it as an
00:16:44
unguided, undirected process with no ultimate end goal, end
00:16:48
goal. So these people would say, well,
00:16:51
God is working at a way that is invisible to us, maybe at the
00:16:56
level of quantum indeterminacy to to regulate or direct the
00:17:00
evolutionary process. And then there's some people who
00:17:03
say, no, the evolutionary process actually contrary to
00:17:07
what mainstream biologists say, actually is a directional
00:17:12
process that clearly it is purposeful in mind and and
00:17:17
there's a a number of, again, scientists who are Christians
00:17:23
who would take that particular view, that view.
00:17:27
Again, is not a view that it would be supported by mainstream
00:17:31
biologists who would see evolution as strictly a natural
00:17:34
process, because again, they would say there isn't really
00:17:37
evidence for directionality or purpose in evolution.
00:17:41
So this would be a place where these evolutionary creationists
00:17:45
are actually departing from the mainstream view.
00:17:48
So it really is a spectrum of views that can be a little bit
00:17:53
maddening at times. As you try to make sense of what
00:17:56
an individual person who holds that view would would be
00:18:00
ascribing to, but the bottom line is that what it all shares
00:18:03
in in common. All these three perspectives or
00:18:06
this range of perspective share in common is really the idea
00:18:10
that evolution is a process God created and that he used in some
00:18:14
manner to bring about his creative purposes.
00:18:19
Yeah, and the reason you'll get to the reasons to believe
00:18:24
stance, But a current organization would be bio logos.
00:18:29
And for people who don't know, like, it's a foundation.
00:18:33
That was started by Francis Collins and it used to be the
00:18:37
guy who mapped the human genome. Now it's Fauci's boss.
00:18:42
Oh, really? That's the connection that's
00:18:44
easier to make. And someone who subscribed also
00:18:47
to that kind of thinking that people may recognize was Tim
00:18:50
Keller, NT right? Yes, goes along those lines.
00:18:55
And I don't know if you know or remember, but I worked for bio
00:18:58
Logos for four months as their Chief Development Officer and
00:19:03
only four months because I didn't agree and that didn't sit
00:19:06
well. You can imagine I didn't fit in
00:19:10
with staff very well. And the reason I had the issue
00:19:13
was I'm not going to throw by a locus under the bus or by the
00:19:18
jobs and stuff, but my intention was, hey, I'll get into an org.
00:19:21
I didn't know that much about any of these actually.
00:19:24
But was hey, just groups that debate other groups like
00:19:27
yourselves with an open discussion to help kids in
00:19:31
school have some information when all they're hearing is
00:19:36
naturalistic evolution. That's what I supported.
00:19:39
It wasn't so much their stance on this, but my biggest
00:19:44
objection that didn't sitwell initially was that if you we
00:19:49
don't have time on this program here, but if you go down that
00:19:52
road scripturally, you begin to take away that that Adam was a
00:19:59
singular fall, that sin, death came through sin, sin came
00:20:03
through Adam and crisis the second Adam who was sinless.
00:20:08
It starts to break down the theology Paul's presenting, and
00:20:13
you almost have to rewrite Romans.
00:20:16
When you start to follow evolutionary creationism, I
00:20:21
found, and I didn't find a good answer to that, just step around
00:20:25
and almost an ignoring theology and pointing you back to science
00:20:30
to me. As you know, they have to go
00:20:33
together. Yeah.
00:20:36
And and and that would be one of my hesitancies with embracing
00:20:40
evolutionary creation, is that that very issue that you're
00:20:44
raising? And you know, I I'm friends with
00:20:49
many of the people that work at Biolagos.
00:20:51
I consider them brothers and sisters in Christ.
00:20:54
They many of the people there really love the Lord Jesus, and
00:20:59
they just have convictions that evolution is really the way in
00:21:04
which the history of life unfurled.
00:21:07
But the problem is, is that you really are forced to make some
00:21:12
theological concessions and to be fair.
00:21:15
You know, many of the people at Biologos recognize the
00:21:18
theological shortcomings of that their of their position and are
00:21:22
actively trying to address those shortcomings.
00:21:25
But I've just not seen them do that in a way that's satisfying
00:21:29
to me personally, you know. But it is a a position that as
00:21:36
you point out, a number of prominent Christians embrace and
00:21:40
you know they they they have reasons that they embrace that
00:21:44
position. Those reasons are primarily
00:21:47
driven by what they see the science is saying.
00:21:52
Yeah, I'll go to this next one. Since we're talking about
00:21:57
prominent Christians. This one also had some prominent
00:21:59
Christians behind it. That would surprise people
00:22:03
because I think in general Christian culture, Sunday
00:22:06
school, church, let's say evolution, secular, 6 day
00:22:14
creation, biblical, and a lot of it is a lack of information on
00:22:20
anything else. So I think people so the six day
00:22:25
creation people and I'm not even putting, I'm putting myself in
00:22:27
none of these categories because honestly I don't know being
00:22:32
honest on this one. I don't have a dog in this
00:22:34
fight. But I will tell you the one that
00:22:36
I I've always liked the best, and it's not even one of the top
00:22:39
ones, but I just feel good about it.
00:22:41
But old Earth creationism, which I think you're going to
00:22:44
highlight here, people may be surprised that CS Lewis, Pat
00:22:51
Robertson, Billy Graham never said he was an old Earth
00:22:57
creation. As old Earth creation as people
00:22:59
would be, that not necessarily a six day creation, that the Earth
00:23:03
is actually very old as scientists would say.
00:23:07
But Billy Graham even suggested that there's no conflict between
00:23:10
the idea of an old earth and in the Christian faith.
00:23:16
And I know reasons to believe for sure, Hugh Ross and I
00:23:19
believe yourself that this would be your stance.
00:23:22
So what is Old Earth Creationism and and why do you land on this
00:23:26
one? Yeah, well, the the idea behind
00:23:29
Old Earth creationism is that the data that comes from science
00:23:34
for the antiquity of the universe, the antiquity of the
00:23:37
Earth, the antiquity of life on Earth, is viewed as being sound.
00:23:42
And and so the idea is that the Earth really is old, the
00:23:45
universe really is old, and that many old Earth creationists, not
00:23:49
everyone, would view Genesis one as being historical.
00:23:53
Or the days simply refer to periods of time as opposed to,
00:23:58
you know, 24 hours or a calendar as a calendar day.
00:24:02
OK. Can I pause you right there?
00:24:03
Yeah. So I'll tell you first my
00:24:06
understanding and then I'm going to specifically ask about that
00:24:08
24 hours. So I happen to know that in
00:24:12
Hebrew, the word day doesn't necessarily mean so.
00:24:16
Part of the reading scripture that is confusing to us is in
00:24:19
our minds. We read it in contemporary
00:24:21
culture in English, and we think we know what it means when it
00:24:25
was written in antiquity by ancient civilizations in Hebrew
00:24:32
that don't have matching words. So you have a word like day that
00:24:38
could mean day and and what I've heard with the Young Earth
00:24:42
creationists say is one of their, or at least I listened to
00:24:45
this one YouTube and their whole point of proving it was a 24
00:24:48
hour period is that most of the time in scripture the word day
00:24:52
is used for an actual day. But that doesn't mean anything.
00:24:55
Because if the word day can mean an extended period of time, like
00:24:59
the day of the Lord or like a period of time, it doesn't
00:25:04
matter how often it's used. It may only be relevant this one
00:25:07
time, so it's used one time. So day as you know is not
00:25:13
necessarily in Hebrew a 24 hour period.
00:25:16
But my question is then why does it say morning and evening like?
00:25:23
And by putting an exclamation point on this is a day as you
00:25:27
know it, yeah. Well, the the I'm not a biblical
00:25:31
scholar, so I'm I'm relying on what I read from from biblical
00:25:35
scholars and the people that I've had.
00:25:37
A chance to interact with working at reasons to leave who
00:25:40
are biblical scholars And one explanation that I've heard is
00:25:44
that that if it was actually if evening and morning were being
00:25:51
used to connote that the the creation day was 24 hours, the
00:25:56
expression should be and it was evening and it was evening,
00:26:00
right? Because in the Hebrew framework.
00:26:04
A day began in the evening and ended the next evening that
00:26:08
would would have been 24 hours and so the fact that it says
00:26:12
there was evening and there was morning is really a clue that
00:26:17
maybe something else is going on here and and in fact I've heard
00:26:24
some scholars say that. With Hebrew, there is actually a
00:26:29
image associated with words. There is a picture associated
00:26:34
with words. And the thought is that what's
00:26:37
being communicated there is that what was we were unable to see
00:26:42
that his evening became that which was visible.
00:26:45
So in other words, you know God is engaged in His act of
00:26:49
creation, and that the summary of that day of creation would
00:26:53
be. Bringing it all together, saying
00:26:56
that which could not be seen became that which could be seen.
00:27:00
And then of course we have the 7th day where God rests and
00:27:04
there's no evening and there's no morning, implying that we
00:27:08
still are in the 7th day. And there's other passages of
00:27:11
Scripture that make reference to that.
00:27:13
So that idea that there was evening and morning doesn't
00:27:17
immediately mean that that day must be 24 hours or a calendar
00:27:22
day. And in fact, I heard a Walt
00:27:25
Kaiser once argue he was a is a very prominent Old Testament
00:27:29
scholar that on the first day of creation, a day was created.
00:27:34
In other words, on the first day of creation or the first
00:27:38
creation day, a calendar day was created where light was
00:27:42
separated from darkness. And light was called day,
00:27:45
darkness was called night. And so his argument is that the
00:27:48
creation day must be something other than 24 hours if the first
00:27:54
day of creation was created, you know, on that day of creation.
00:27:59
And by the way, the word Yom is also used in Genesis 2.
00:28:04
One or two Two. Which is a summary actually
00:28:08
that. The Genesis One creation account
00:28:10
extends into Genesis 2, the first two or three verses, but
00:28:14
there there's a reference of of, of to to the totality of the
00:28:18
Creation week, if you will, where Yom is used to refer to
00:28:23
that entirety of the creation week presented in Genesis 1.
00:28:29
So there's an. There are two examples of Yom
00:28:32
being used in that immediate context.
00:28:35
Where they are clearly referring to something other than a
00:28:37
calendar day. So in Old Earth Creationism that
00:28:45
your view would be that it's clearly an old Earth by science.
00:28:49
And here's where for all the we're getting to the Young Earth
00:28:52
Creationism people, if that's where you stand, and most of you
00:28:54
probably do so if you haven't tuned out yet, just give us a
00:28:58
ear. Is that one beef I have with
00:29:03
young Earth creationism? Is the tone I guess is like
00:29:07
they'll say, well we're the Biblical Crea where they call
00:29:09
themselves the Biblical creation.
00:29:11
It's if nothing else is a biblical view.
00:29:14
Even with some of my best friends friend I'll try to have
00:29:19
let's say this conversation we're having and if I go
00:29:22
anything beyond a conversation whether I believe in it or not,
00:29:25
a six day creation I get stopped because it's I believe the Bible
00:29:31
without hearing. Yeah but are you reading the
00:29:33
Bible correctly. It doesn't.
00:29:40
I'm going off on a tangent, but let me go down this tangent.
00:29:44
Rd. for a little bit for those listeners because because you
00:29:46
know the majority just believe six day creation or never
00:29:48
thought about it and then this is almost heresy.
00:29:50
We were talking about different things and I've even and I guess
00:29:54
because every time I do a podcast I do a little homework.
00:29:57
I listen to other scholars, theologians on these topics all
00:30:00
different views. So I kind of a pretty good idea
00:30:02
and I don't even have to go by notes usually I just can kind of
00:30:04
talk. But what I heard over and over
00:30:07
again from the six to eight young earth creationist is
00:30:12
really kind of a chip on the shoulder anger and pointing the
00:30:16
finger as if the other views aren't questioning.
00:30:19
If you can be Christian in view, view in an old earth, can you be
00:30:24
Christian in view? Evolutionary creationism.
00:30:28
So I'm doing this rabbit trail. But for those that are
00:30:30
listening, if you have those kind of thoughts, let me ask you
00:30:33
this. The thief on the cross, Jesus,
00:30:36
is crucified with two other people who deserve to be killed.
00:30:41
Well, nobody deserves to be executed in that way, crucified,
00:30:46
but whatever. So they're being killed.
00:30:50
One of them addresses and he says, Lord, Remember Me when you
00:30:53
go into your Kingdom? Jesus reply was not what's your
00:30:57
view on creation? This man, according to Romans,
00:31:02
acknowledged Jesus is Lord and submitted to his Lordship and
00:31:06
asked to be in his Kingdom. You're in the only thing that's
00:31:10
missing from Romans and how to be saved, as if you believe in
00:31:13
your heart. Jesus was raised from the dead.
00:31:15
Well, at that point he hadn't died yet, right?
00:31:17
So. But he did everything else.
00:31:20
It didn't come up. Do you believe?
00:31:23
On what? What's your view on creation,
00:31:24
Sir? And then we'll let you know.
00:31:27
So this Christian stuff kind of makes me mad.
00:31:29
These are topics that Christianity is based on.
00:31:33
Do you acknowledge your Sinner and Jesus is your savior and do
00:31:36
you receive him as that done these other topics, If it Paul,
00:31:42
Jesus, somebody would have made it clear that salvation depends
00:31:45
on this. Nobody did.
00:31:47
And if it did, that'd be a cruel trick, because it's not clear we
00:31:52
have so many intelligent people like yourselves saying the exact
00:31:56
opposite. NT Wright is saying Francis
00:31:58
Collins. These guys are no Dum Dums, and
00:32:04
that's my tangent to like, take the temperature down a little
00:32:08
bit on these topics, and if you're 100% Young Earth
00:32:12
creationism, great. If you don't want to listen to
00:32:16
people, great, but don't judge their eternal salvation on it.
00:32:22
Well, you know, I mean, your point is really a strong point,
00:32:25
Ken. And in fact, this past weekend I
00:32:27
was at Denver Theological Seminary and we were doing a
00:32:31
conference on human origins and Christianity, and I represented
00:32:36
the old Earth Creationist view. And we had three other people
00:32:40
that were representing an evolutionary creationist view.
00:32:44
And and and so three of the four presenters thought that God used
00:32:49
evolution as a means to create. I took the view that there was a
00:32:53
real historical Adam and Eve that were the first humans
00:32:57
created by God in his image and gave rise to all humanity.
00:33:01
There were two other people that held to a historical.
00:33:06
Adam and Eve and one person that said Attic.
00:33:09
Adam and Eve were mythical, but they all saw God using evolution
00:33:13
as a way to create and they all had a very strong commitment to
00:33:19
the Lordship of of Jesus Christ and they all three had in
00:33:24
addition to me all all of us had a very strong commitment that
00:33:27
science and the Christian faith are in harmony with each other.
00:33:31
We were just simply presenting very different models.
00:33:35
For how you know, God would have brought about his creative
00:33:39
purposes with regard to the origin of humanity.
00:33:42
But the larger point connecting to you, the point you're making,
00:33:46
is that for a young person who is wondering how does my faith
00:33:53
as a Christian intersect with with science, They were landing
00:33:58
spots that that that young person could have depending
00:34:02
upon. They're they're theological
00:34:04
convictions about the nature of Genesis 1, the the historicity
00:34:10
of Adam and Eve. And you know, and how do we make
00:34:14
sense of the genre of Genesis One?
00:34:18
What about, you know, as you're bringing up earlier that the
00:34:21
theological views of Paul. So the point is, is that young
00:34:26
people have a place to land if you take the view that my way is
00:34:31
the only way. Then what you're doing is you
00:34:34
are creating problems for a young person who may actually
00:34:39
come to a very different conviction and let's say the
00:34:42
idea of young Earth creationism. And if you take that position
00:34:46
that my way is the only way. It's very hard to have these
00:34:51
open conversations where we work together to try to figure out
00:34:56
what is the best model for how to make sense of all of this.
00:35:00
And there are models that make sense of it.
00:35:03
There's some that I prefer and some that I don't prefer.
00:35:06
But just because I prefer one model doesn't mean that somebody
00:35:09
else can't legitimately prefer a model that I'm not convinced by.
00:35:14
Right. And so we create these landing
00:35:16
spots that have integrity and and this is very important but
00:35:21
when we adopt the position that our way is the only way that
00:35:24
other positions are anti biblical.
00:35:27
What we do is we we run the risk of creating a divisive
00:35:31
environment that becomes characterized by animosity and
00:35:36
vitriol that keeps pastors from wanting to have these
00:35:40
conversations in their congregations.
00:35:42
And the people that lose are the young people who are going to
00:35:46
wind up having to make decisions and are going to probably be
00:35:50
confronted with things that come from science when they go to
00:35:54
college that they don't know how to process.
00:35:57
And they they end up walking away from their faith as opposed
00:36:01
to being secure in their faith because they realize, hey, there
00:36:04
are options. There are options that I have it
00:36:07
and and that I don't have to give up my faith and and embrace
00:36:13
science, that there are ways to do that with integrity.
00:36:16
That's why it matters to me so much.
00:36:18
So before we were recording I was telling you know this topic
00:36:21
I'm not the best time because it was never it interests me that
00:36:25
much because I didn't need to know this to be a believer.
00:36:30
I came in experiencing Christ through different revelation and
00:36:35
it wasn't through science. Had to prove it to my mind 1st
00:36:38
and it led me down a path. It was an after thing.
00:36:40
So it's more just like interesting.
00:36:44
But where I have a little fervor about it is people in the
00:36:49
classrooms starting in grade school, through college, where
00:36:53
they hear one naturalistic evolution, not necessarily
00:36:57
because it's true, is because you can't teach anything else or
00:37:00
it's religion, even if the information adds up to.
00:37:04
Well, there's other different theories, but we would have to
00:37:07
imply there's a supernatural force has done this or natural
00:37:10
intelligence. In my view, what would be fair
00:37:13
education is to say here's Darwinism or whatever you want
00:37:16
to call it, and then here's views beyond that.
00:37:21
But it would take something beyond metaphysical with
00:37:27
intelligence. But that's as far as we're
00:37:29
allowed to take it. Because you go into religion but
00:37:31
let people know it at least ends there.
00:37:33
Like that's a possibility. And in as far as, like Christian
00:37:38
kids in school, it really makes me angry because they're faced
00:37:42
with and with this rhetoric that's stirring me up is are you
00:37:47
Christian? You can't be Christian if you
00:37:48
believe in this or that because then they hear that in church by
00:37:52
their leaders and they think in when they're sitting in biology,
00:37:54
they think that my faith depends on this and I'm choosing God or
00:38:01
I'm walking away from them. And my intelligent mind says
00:38:05
some of this seems legit and it's like a black and white
00:38:08
choice. And I would say to anybody
00:38:12
listening, you know, if it's not you, you know, students, you
00:38:16
have kids, you have nieces and nephews or friends in school.
00:38:21
All of them are challenged with us at some point.
00:38:23
And I would share it with them just so they can hear Doctor
00:38:26
Rana's words that there's other choices to look into outside the
00:38:30
classroom. And then these words is your
00:38:32
faith does not depend on your view of creation.
00:38:37
You can be 100% wrong on creation.
00:38:40
You don't have to sacrifice your relationship with Christ or it.
00:38:44
Yeah, that that's, that's well said and and and that's where I
00:38:48
come down on it. And again I hold my view
00:38:51
strongly. I'm convinced that my view is
00:38:54
indeed correct. But I I don't think my view is a
00:38:57
litmus test as you're pointing out for somebody's salvation.
00:39:02
And I think we we want to be humble and we want to have
00:39:05
charity towards one another as we wrestle through how science
00:39:10
and faith precisely fit together, I think.
00:39:14
That there is no question that many of the ideas that we see in
00:39:18
Scripture harmonize with the discoveries in science in very
00:39:22
powerful ways, which gives us confidence that what we see in
00:39:27
Scripture is true. We we're we have good reasons
00:39:31
from science to think that indeed there is a Creator, and
00:39:34
that Creator is very much likely to be the God of the Bible.
00:39:39
So there's there are good reasons, but when we're trying
00:39:42
to put together the specific details of of of the are the
00:39:46
models that we hold to. It's a very complex enterprise.
00:39:50
How do we understand the genre of Genesis 1?
00:39:53
Again, is a historical Adam and Eve essential to the Christian
00:39:58
faith? And if so, what is the the range
00:40:01
of parameters? These are complex issues that
00:40:04
very brilliant people are engaging and wrestling with.
00:40:09
And you know, what is the mode of action for how God creates?
00:40:14
Is it through process? Is it through intervention?
00:40:16
Is it some combination of these things?
00:40:19
And the list goes on and on and on.
00:40:21
So this, this is a very complex enterprise that people are
00:40:25
engaged in. But what's exciting to me is
00:40:29
that there are again viable models that really give
00:40:32
everybody a choice. You're able to to settle into a
00:40:36
position that makes the most sense to you depending on how
00:40:40
you're weighing the different arguments and different
00:40:42
evidences. And I'm completely comfortable
00:40:45
if somebody again holds a position different from mine if
00:40:48
if that position make gives them security in their faith.
00:40:53
To me, the tragedy is to to create a stumbling block for
00:40:57
somebody so that if they feel as if they, if they reject or my
00:41:02
position or another position, they can't be a Christian.
00:41:05
As you're pointing out, that is a a real travesty and it's
00:41:08
unnecessary. It's completely unnecessary.
00:41:13
Yeah, and I didn't do for time. I feel like we should move on.
00:41:16
I didn't allow you to really justify your position.
00:41:19
You can throw in anything you want.
00:41:20
But I would like to say that at reasons.org you'll find lots of
00:41:26
materials, blogs, podcasts, books.
00:41:31
That deal on other science issues but a lot on or they
00:41:34
could look at the that particular old Earth
00:41:38
creationism. And I will say one thing I
00:41:40
learned from by a logos that I did agree with and that I use
00:41:44
often when I talk to young Earth creationism people is because
00:41:49
they'll say, well I believe God can do magic tricks, you know
00:41:52
basically sure he could pop everything up in six days.
00:41:55
He's got sure. That's an answer to everything,
00:41:58
I suppose. It doesn't seem the way the way
00:42:00
he works throughout other scripture, which is even through
00:42:02
human lives. He works through generations and
00:42:05
time. I don't subscribe to the
00:42:07
evolutionary creationism. However, I would say that I do
00:42:11
agree with that. If the Earth in the universe
00:42:16
isn't old, he sure created it to look old because you can't make
00:42:22
stars. Stars take a long time.
00:42:25
All of that takes a long, long time.
00:42:28
And then of course, an argument would be, well, he didn't make
00:42:30
Adam a baby. He started him as a man.
00:42:34
I guess you can do that. But yeah, and and let me really
00:42:39
real, real quickly just give some justification for my I'm
00:42:43
here. All night.
00:42:43
It's your time. I'm yes.
00:42:45
And then we can, then we can move on.
00:42:46
But you know. But the bottom line is that
00:42:49
again, as an old Earth creationist, I'm convinced of
00:42:52
the scientific evidence for the antiquity of the universe, the
00:42:56
Earth, and life on Earth. But for scientific reasons, I'm
00:43:01
not completely convinced that evolutionary mechanisms can
00:43:04
fully account for the origin and the design and the history of
00:43:09
life. I there appear to be places to
00:43:11
me where evolutionary theory breaks down when trying to
00:43:16
explain some of the key transitions in life's history
00:43:20
and and so for that reason I think that again, some measure
00:43:25
of skepticism about the grand claims of evolution are
00:43:29
justified. I also think that the design
00:43:31
that we see in biology and in biochemistry is bona fide
00:43:35
authentic design. That it's not the appearance of
00:43:38
design, but it it's bona fide design.
00:43:41
And so those are reasons why I I I am in the old Earth
00:43:46
creationist camp. But again, I don't reject the
00:43:49
evolutionary paradigm wholesale. There are aspects of the
00:43:53
evolutionary paradigm that I do believe are are successful and
00:44:00
it it I see God working through a combination of intervening as
00:44:05
well as allowing natural process evolution to unfold.
00:44:09
So it's really a, you know, a a a perspective that is kind of in
00:44:15
between, you know an anti evolution view and a view that
00:44:20
is you know, you know whole embracing evolutionary theory
00:44:25
wholesale. It's kind of an in between
00:44:27
position. And I agree with you that for
00:44:31
theological purposes and for the genealogy structure of all of
00:44:37
Scripture, there has to be a historical atom.
00:44:41
And before we move on, having said that as brief as you can,
00:44:47
how do you explain then like Neanderthals, right?
00:44:54
Well, I mean, our particular view is that the creatures, like
00:44:57
Neanderthals were real creatures that existed.
00:45:00
We don't see them as evolutionary intermediates to
00:45:03
humans, but rather we'd see them as part of God's creation.
00:45:07
These are creatures that had some measure of intelligence and
00:45:11
emotional capacity. The precise degree of their
00:45:14
cognitive abilities is debated by by the scientific community.
00:45:19
So we'd take the view that these creatures again, were
00:45:22
intelligence and had emotionally rich lives, but that they lacked
00:45:28
the image of God, that only human beings bear God's image.
00:45:33
Which technically I think that that Adam and Eve and their
00:45:38
descendants were what we would call scientifically,
00:45:40
anatomically and behaviorally modern humans.
00:45:44
So that's how we would make sense of them, is that they are
00:45:47
again creatures that locked the image of God, though they had
00:45:52
intelligence and they did share some common features with us,
00:45:56
but we just see that those shared features as reflecting
00:45:59
common design as opposed to common descent.
00:46:02
So not evolution between apes and modern humans.
00:46:06
A different species preatom, yes.
00:46:11
And that Adam is the first one made in the image of God.
00:46:15
A whole new creation, yes. Yeah.
00:46:21
OK, we still got younger, and I'd like to touch on
00:46:27
intelligence design because I have a question about that.
00:46:30
But I do want to real quick give mine.
00:46:32
So. So I'm going to tell you about
00:46:35
this one, even though you know it, because he's the only one I
00:46:36
know pretty well. So when I was younger, I was,
00:46:42
you know, like Hugh Ross says when he was a kid, he's reading
00:46:44
all these astrophysics books or whatever.
00:46:46
Astronomy. I was a kid and I'm reading all
00:46:49
this Bible literature from Apocalypse, Hal Lindsey stuff to
00:46:57
just reading through the entire Cyclopedias of Scripture.
00:47:01
They did whatever I was just I was a weird kid and one of them
00:47:03
was Jimmy Swigert had, I don't know, some kind of school or
00:47:07
course, I don't know what it was, but they're these big thick
00:47:10
bound study courses. It'd be like just the book of
00:47:14
Daniel, for instance. And there was, and I'd go
00:47:17
through it and fill in all the answers.
00:47:18
And one was, I don't know if he called it the gap theory or if I
00:47:23
learned it later, but I thought I like that.
00:47:27
And so people who don't know what the gap theory is just in
00:47:31
real soup brief, it's old Earth. And the idea, if I get the
00:47:35
details right, is that in the beginning God created the
00:47:38
heavens and the earth. And if I remember correctly, in
00:47:41
Hebrew there's not a period or whatever.
00:47:44
There's like a Reba, some kind of punctuation mark which is a
00:47:47
placeholder for an unknown period of time.
00:47:50
Verse two says now the earth was without form and void.
00:47:53
Later in scripture. Scripture says that God creates
00:47:57
nothing form and void. So it looks like somewhere
00:48:02
between verse one and two his creation in verse 2.
00:48:06
Something catastrophic happened and it was flooded whatever and
00:48:11
it Fast forward. Oh and by the time we get to
00:48:13
Garden of Eden seems like right away the creation supposedly
00:48:18
says recreation that there was something before which would
00:48:21
explain Neanderthals and all this kind of the bones we find
00:48:25
of other things. And it explains why not a snake.
00:48:30
But I think if we study the Hebrew, you'll find out just
00:48:33
some kind of appearance of Lucifer in the garden.
00:48:36
Talking to Adam and Eve, he's already fallen, he's already a
00:48:39
deceiver. And that that's.
00:48:44
And if we read about his fallen scripture where he wanted to
00:48:46
ascend to the mountain of God, well he was on earth ruling
00:48:49
there with some kind of substandard Neanderthals or
00:48:54
something going on with a third of the angels.
00:48:56
And then he wanted to rebel and he got cast down.
00:49:00
And if that is talking about Lucifer and not a king of Persia
00:49:03
or whatever it is. Then this is the kings of the
00:49:07
nations were like, who is this? He's fallen to nothing.
00:49:11
But what? Kings of the nations, what are
00:49:12
they talking about? Well, that maybe Lucifer fell
00:49:16
and these subhuman things or whatever saw him fall.
00:49:20
It all got flooded by water, wiped out.
00:49:23
Now verse 2 happens. Who knows how many how many
00:49:26
years later? And now he just recedes the
00:49:30
waters and the mountains are already there.
00:49:32
Satan's already there. And he does this new beautiful
00:49:35
creation of Adam and begins a garden.
00:49:39
That's basically the gap theory, that there's a gap between verse
00:49:42
one and two. And I loved that.
00:49:44
It just totally made sense to me.
00:49:47
And then smart people like you and Hugh Ross or even the bio
00:49:50
logos, nobody talks about the gap theory.
00:49:52
And I'm like, so off the top of your head, is there like one or
00:49:56
two reasons that gets dismissed or is it very similar?
00:50:00
It is old Earth, yeah. Or to me, it just seems like it
00:50:05
was kind of like a fad and then it disappeared and and that's
00:50:09
that's my, you know, my sense too is that it just feels like
00:50:14
for whatever reason that particular perspective has
00:50:17
fallen out of favor or has lost popularity and has been
00:50:22
supplanted by by other perspectives.
00:50:25
You know, you know, I I don't see anything fundamentally wrong
00:50:30
with that perspective. It's a model, right, that that
00:50:33
attempts to account for the data biblically and scientifically.
00:50:39
So you know, I, you know, I think part of that model, if I'm
00:50:45
if I understand correctly and I may be misunderstanding, is that
00:50:49
the the bio, the biosphere is actually a recent creation,
00:50:55
whereas the earth is old, the biosphere is a recent creation.
00:50:59
And I just when I look at the biosphere I see antiquity to the
00:51:03
biosphere scientifically. But again, I could be wrong as
00:51:08
as to whether or not that's a part of the gap theory.
00:51:12
Okay. We'll move into, and I think
00:51:14
most people know what young earth is.
00:51:15
We've stated it several times before.
00:51:17
You give a summary of it to the young earth people, which is the
00:51:20
majority of people who just believe God created the earth in
00:51:23
six days, because that's what Scripture says.
00:51:25
And anything outside of that, their view seems to be you're
00:51:28
going beyond what scripture says.
00:51:30
So I just want to tell other people, nobody here is trying to
00:51:33
go outside of scripture. It's did you interpret it
00:51:36
correctly? And we're not even saying it's
00:51:39
poetry of the time and it's just they they're talking in myth
00:51:42
form of a general idea that no, that science and scripture in
00:51:48
Genesis does match up. But we may have been reading it
00:51:53
in just a modern western English way in our lifetime, and we just
00:52:00
assumed that's that was correct. And it and it may be, but it may
00:52:03
not be. So just in brief, what would you
00:52:07
say to represent the young earth creation?
00:52:11
Yeah, well, it's it's, it's a view that I think is largely
00:52:13
driven by biblical concerns where people that are young
00:52:17
earth creationists have a very strong conviction that
00:52:22
scriptures teaching that the earth is indeed young and that
00:52:26
humans were created recently only, you know, a few thousand
00:52:31
years ago. And you know this, this
00:52:36
perspective, as you said, is a very prominent perspective.
00:52:40
Interestingly enough, it does have some shared features with
00:52:45
Old Earth creationism or Old Earth Creationism and Young
00:52:48
Earth creationism do have shared features.
00:52:50
Both perspectives have the the view that Adam and Eve were real
00:52:55
historical people made in God's image, that both perspectives
00:53:00
expressed skepticism about the evolutionary paradigm, that the
00:53:04
large difference is really the duration of the the creation
00:53:08
week. Is it again a vast period of
00:53:11
time or is it 6 consecutive 24 hour periods of time?
00:53:17
And I'll just simply say this that you know, I I I do see a a
00:53:23
some some biblical and theological strengths to the
00:53:26
young earth position. But I don't actually think that
00:53:29
these this position is without theological and biblical
00:53:32
problems. Many times it's presented as if
00:53:35
as if this position is ironclad biblically and theologically.
00:53:40
But we don't have time to go into it.
00:53:42
But I actually do see biblical and theological issues with it.
00:53:46
And I'll tell you this that I've never yet to see any compelling
00:53:51
scientific argument presented from the young earth perspective
00:53:54
that the earth is young and and I just every argument that I've
00:53:59
seen. When I dig into the argument, I
00:54:02
I see some significant flaws that fail to convince me that
00:54:08
the the the any scientific evidence for Young Earth
00:54:11
creationism to me, falls short. Yeah, one thing I like that I've
00:54:16
heard Doctor Hugh Ross say several times when he's talking
00:54:20
on this topic is you have to get an account, all of scriptures,
00:54:25
account of creation. And I don't usually hear that
00:54:28
with the young Earth. They go by the six day thing and
00:54:30
they stick to what that must mean in our modern terms, and
00:54:33
even if the Hebrew means something else.
00:54:36
It doesn't usually mean that through scripture, so let's just
00:54:39
weigh on that. Why would God use something a
00:54:41
one off? And where Hugh's saying, what
00:54:45
about the book of Psalms? What about Jeremiah?
00:54:47
What about Job or these other ones that reference creation and
00:54:51
it adds to Genesis. And when you get the wider
00:54:56
scope, you start to get a it starts to fill in some gaps.
00:55:02
That is all Biblical. Nobody's here is going outside
00:55:05
of. Biblical, right?
00:55:07
Well, you know, it's interesting.
00:55:08
And I I've got a collection of passages of Scripture that
00:55:12
literally make the point that the earth is old.
00:55:16
It speaks about the antiquity of the earth directly.
00:55:18
It speaks about the antiquity of the heavens, the skies, the
00:55:22
mountains, the rivers. And so there are statements, and
00:55:28
I wish I had that that list in front of me.
00:55:30
I could give you some of those passages.
00:55:32
So what's interesting to me is as you move outside of Genesis
00:55:36
One through 11, not only are you know is an old Earth perspective
00:55:41
compatible with again Genesis One through 11, but there's
00:55:45
other passages that seem to suggest an old Earth perspective
00:55:49
is preferred, including these passages that make direct
00:55:53
statements about about the antiquity of the earth and its
00:55:56
features. So.
00:56:04
Young Earth, I don't know where my position is.
00:56:11
I really want the gap theory to be true, but that's because I
00:56:14
held on to it for so long. You know, I I didn't really have
00:56:17
a I don't have a dog in the fight.
00:56:18
But I just think that Old Earth lines up so well with scripture.
00:56:25
And I don't take scripture lightly at all, or just want to
00:56:30
say if it doesn't fit my view, Oh well, it's a metaphor or
00:56:33
whatever. And what I've heard young earth
00:56:35
people say, or it's referred to young earth as when they take
00:56:38
the Bible literally, you have to.
00:56:39
Well, not everybody takes the Bible all literally and you
00:56:42
don't. I'm pointing to them.
00:56:44
I I could be young Earth. I don't know.
00:56:46
I don't have a strong stance. I think it sure appears to be
00:56:49
old and that science should line up with scripture and I don't
00:56:52
think it's twisting scripture. But for instance, Jesus says
00:56:56
he's the door. Well, he's not literally a door.
00:57:00
But he is the door to salvation and he is knocking.
00:57:04
And you answer his spiritual knock on your heart and he will
00:57:10
enter you. It's a perfect analogy or
00:57:15
metaphor. But he's not literally a door.
00:57:19
But I'll hear Young Earth Creationism like, but that's the
00:57:21
literal one. Or they call themselves Biblical
00:57:24
Creationist. Well, that's really rude.
00:57:27
Even if I'm Young Earth Creationism, it's just just an
00:57:29
insult to you. I know you're a believer and
00:57:32
you're everything you're saying is Bible based, but I'm
00:57:34
excluding yours is not biblical. Yeah or not?
00:57:38
Yeah, go ahead. Well, are often here that it's
00:57:41
just simply a plain reading of the text.
00:57:43
Well, maybe a plain reading of the text for you, but it's not
00:57:48
necessarily a plain reading of the text for other people.
00:57:51
And you know, we want to be careful, as you mentioned
00:57:54
earlier that we're not just simply reading it in our modern
00:57:58
context that we recognize that this was, you know, a passage of
00:58:02
Scripture that was given initially to the to to people
00:58:07
that were descendants of of of Israel.
00:58:10
Right. That that this is that this is
00:58:13
given to a particular audience who had a a A use of language or
00:58:19
use of of, you know, language devices that may in some
00:58:24
instances be unfamiliar to us. And so we we have to try to put
00:58:29
ourselves as much as we can in the context of the people that
00:58:33
originally received the the passages, the the text, and who
00:58:38
we have to understand their their use of.
00:58:43
You know of language at that time, the use of Biblical
00:58:46
Hebrew. So you know, the idea that it's
00:58:49
a plain reading of the text is really a false way to approach
00:58:53
the text. And yeah, and I don't.
00:58:56
There's been a lot of offensive when I talk about it because I
00:58:59
don't think it's just it's all allegorical or it's just some
00:59:03
kind of way of storytelling. However, scripture is as you're
00:59:08
referring to, and I don't know if a lot of people understand.
00:59:11
I just call the Sunday School people.
00:59:13
That there's different genres of scripture.
00:59:15
There's wisdom literature. It's written differently.
00:59:18
The apocalyptic literature is completely written differently.
00:59:22
Jesus spoke in parables. That was a form of the day to
00:59:26
get truths across without ever saying the truth, spiritual
00:59:31
truth and physical story form, and then to say this area.
00:59:37
May not have any kind of story form in its culture or day.
00:59:41
It's just kind of limiting and a little naive I think.
00:59:46
OK fuzz, I got one left and here's this one that where my
00:59:52
confusion is. Don't these all have intelligent
00:59:55
design involved in them? Because these are all except
00:59:58
naturalistic evolution. The rest are Christian, if not
01:00:04
at least. Atheist point of view that there
01:00:06
was an intelligent creator and a designer.
01:00:08
So what makes this different than that general idea?
01:00:12
And and your point is really well made and that is that the
01:00:16
the term intelligent design it is, is a really a broad term
01:00:21
that I think you know, evolutionary creationists, old
01:00:28
earth creationists, and young Earth creationists would all
01:00:30
embrace maybe. The the the places where design
01:00:35
is seen might be considered to be different in those three
01:00:38
models, but they all embrace intelligent design.
01:00:41
I heard Dennis Lamoreaux, who is from Canada, he's a a a biblical
01:00:51
scholar as well as an evolutionary biologist, say that
01:00:55
he believes in intelligent design.
01:00:57
He thinks God intelligently designed the evolutionary
01:01:00
process. But with respect to the
01:01:05
intelligent design movement, this is a a a a movement that
01:01:11
argues that biological systems are are designed, that they have
01:01:17
this appearance of being intelligently designed, but that
01:01:21
the position is really agnostic on who the designer is and and
01:01:26
and really is even agnostic on things like the age of the
01:01:30
earth, even things like. A common dissent.
01:01:33
And so there are people in the intelligent design movement who
01:01:37
are not necessarily Christians, who maybe who might be Muslims
01:01:41
or might even be agnostics, who are just simply convinced that
01:01:45
there is evidence for design in nature.
01:01:49
But they again recognize that who that designer is is beyond
01:01:54
the purview of science, and they argue that this is simply
01:01:58
becomes a theological question. So they're trying to.
01:02:02
Operate as a secular program where they are challenging the
01:02:07
mainstream scientific perspective in in biology with
01:02:14
the idea that there is no teleology or design or purpose
01:02:18
in biology. They're challenging that
01:02:20
mainstream perspective by arguing there's very clearly
01:02:24
evidence for design, but again, they see themselves as a secular
01:02:28
program. Not as a religious program, and
01:02:33
again are agnostic on who that designer is as formally as part
01:02:38
of that program. But there are people that I know
01:02:41
in the ID movement who are not only Christians, but who would
01:02:46
hold to an older perspective. Some hold to a a young Earth
01:02:50
perspective. But, you know, I resonate with
01:02:55
many of the ideas in the intelligent design movement.
01:02:57
There's some ideas that I'm, I don't necessarily agree with,
01:03:01
but I resonate largely with what the intelligent design movement
01:03:05
advocates. But I just simply feel
01:03:08
uncomfortable saying that that designer is unknowable, even
01:03:13
from science. I think science can only tell us
01:03:16
that there is design, but it can give us some good insight as to
01:03:20
who that designer would be. And that insight leads us to the
01:03:24
God of the Bible well within the intelligent design movement.
01:03:30
I mean I always felt like intelligent design was just the
01:03:33
way Christians tried to argue evolutionism.
01:03:36
So is that not true or is that just some of the voices within
01:03:39
that movement? Or was there kind of a sub
01:03:41
movement of Christian intelligent design as a way to
01:03:45
explain it encounter? Is there true groups?
01:03:49
Yeah, well, I mean within the the intelligent design movement
01:03:53
again, which sees itself as just simply making the case that
01:03:57
there is design in biological systems.
01:04:00
There are people that are young Earth creationists, old Earth
01:04:03
creationists, but there's also, again, people that are Muslim or
01:04:07
that hold to, you know, other religious.
01:04:10
Perspectives or even express some measure of agnosticism.
01:04:15
So it really is an umbrella position or a catchall position
01:04:19
that really has a very different objective than I think most
01:04:23
young earth, old earth, or even evolutionary creationist
01:04:26
organizations, where these organizations are really
01:04:29
advancing a a Christian worldview and are arguing that
01:04:33
science and faith are compatible.
01:04:36
Again, the models are different, but they were arguing that
01:04:38
science and faith are compatible and as a result of that we can
01:04:42
we can trust the message of scripture.
01:04:45
Whereas the ID movement is just simply saying there is design
01:04:49
and they're stopping at that point.
01:04:51
But they're because again, all three positions, evolutionary
01:04:56
creation, old earth creation, and young earth creation are, in
01:05:00
a sense, design perspectives. They they interact seamlessly
01:05:07
with the intelligent design movement, if that makes any
01:05:09
sense. Yeah, it it makes as much sense
01:05:12
as it can for me. Hey, I appreciate your time.
01:05:16
We crammed a lot of in for each one of those.
01:05:19
Could be an hour long. Well, as an intro to to dig into
01:05:24
the science of them. So I appreciate the the overview
01:05:27
and I hope that was helpful for people.
01:05:29
So I mentioned reasons.org is where they can go and what would
01:05:33
they find there? Or is there anything you'd
01:05:35
specifically guide them to if they're interested in this
01:05:38
conversation? Yeah, yeah, well, you know, I
01:05:40
think the place again, as you mentioned to go is reasons.org,
01:05:44
where there's just a whole range of resources that are available
01:05:48
to people, many of them that can access for no cost and it gives
01:05:52
you at least a an old Earth creationist perspective on.
01:05:58
You know the the Science faith conversation.
01:06:00
Also we have a YouTube channel called Reasons to Believe which
01:06:04
is houses a ton of videos that deal with a wide range of
01:06:09
science faith issues. You know, probably a a great
01:06:14
book that people should consider would be one of these 4 views
01:06:19
books. And there is a four views book
01:06:21
that I I can't remember the precise title but it has
01:06:25
something to do with. Science and Genesis and yeah, I
01:06:31
believe that it had Genesis. I believe that had Hugh Ross,
01:06:34
then it had the bio logos, perspective, the evolutionary
01:06:38
creationism, and I know it had Ken Ham.
01:06:41
I think that had the right the 6th day, right the young Earth,
01:06:46
and I don't remember what the 4th one was.
01:06:48
And I, and I again, I can't remember the precise title and
01:06:51
I'm so sorry for that, but that would be a great book.
01:06:54
Also, there's a book that we did at Reasons to Believe with
01:06:57
Biolagos called Old Earth or Evolutionary Creation, where we
01:07:02
engage one another with different aspects of our model.
01:07:05
So that's a great way for people to get a more focused comparison
01:07:11
between. You know, an older perspective
01:07:14
and an evolutionary creationist perspective.
01:07:16
So there are some some great resources that are out there
01:07:19
that I think help people get a handle on, you know, on these
01:07:26
differing perspectives. Great.
01:07:28
All right. Well, thanks for coming on once
01:07:30
again. Yeah.
01:07:31
Thanks for having me, Ken Gavin, among the outlaws, he said.
01:07:35
Come follow me. People from all walks alive
01:07:38
since have been becoming outlaws.