Young Earth Creationism - battling it

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spyridon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I always liked this possible explanation put forth by St. Augustine. In Book 6 of “The Literal Meaning of Genesis” on the creation of man, he explains the idea that the six days represent not literal days, but a scheme or plan of creation. The actual creation during those “days” was instantaneous and of things in potency and causation, but not necessarily their final visible form which would be shaped later over time. For example, he places the actual formation of man’s body after the seventh day:

St. Augustine
There can be no doubt, then, that the work whereby man was formed from the slime of the earth and a wife fashioned for him from his side belongs not to that creation by which all thing were made together, after completing which, God rested, but to that work of God which takes place with the unfolding of the ages as He works even now.
Click to expand...
I find this explanation especially compelling because it explains why there are two separate creation accounts of man in Genesis. It also is compatible with the Big Bang (creation in an instant of all in potency, but not final form) and a long evolutionary time frame (the shaping of everything after the creation).
 
It’s easy to overthink this in an attempt to combat obstinate ignorance. Apologists do a similar thing in debating same sex marriage and gender insanity. These folks are usually not interested in listening and thinking.

You can’t debate foolishness on it’s own terms.
YEC has no basis in fact or reason, and that’s about the only thing you can say. If a person has chosen to ignore established mainstream science they likely will not listen to other reason.
 
@Genesis315 I think something which adds credence to that theory is how the Creation days of Genesis 1 mirror each other:

Day 1 Light(Day) and darkness(night) are created = Day 4 the Sun, Moon, and stars are created (or become visible).

Day 2 the waters are arranged = Day 5 the waters teem with Life, whence fish and then birds appear.

Day 3 first dry land appears, then vegetation on that dry land = Day 6 first animals appear on the land, then Mankind on that dry land.

I think that’s a pretty obvious literary device employed by the Holy Ghost, which strongly suggests the Creation narrative in Gen 1 ought not be interpreted in a strictly chronological or literalistic sense.
 
Last edited:
I just want to say that that link posted by you has really helped me solidify a position on this subject, the idea that it actually was 6 days while at the same time being billions of years, and that the math actually is almost exactly the age given by modern science, is just totally convincing. I had seen some stuff by the same author, and I do like him (shame he’s Jewish, God bless him).
But the interpretation of the one he was quoting also makes sense and seems close to the other early Church fathers who say that the creation all happened at once.

Genesis first days IS literal–and the Universe is old. It’s amazing.
 
And to add to my last post, I find it VERY intriguing that the Sacred Author writing some 3,000 years ago got the rough outline of modern evolutionary science down to a T very impressive.

Using the schematic I just illustrated, first God created the Universe and then the Sun, Moon, stars and Earth. Then the Earth becomes habitable for life to emerge. Then Life begins first vegetation and simple life forms, then sea creatures leading to birds, then animals and finally human beings.

Science tells us first the Universe came into being, and then the galaxies and stars, and our solar system, Sun, Moon, and the Earth. Then the Earth became habitable for life to emerge. Then Life began, first vegetation and simple life forms, then sea creatures leading to birds, then animals and finally human beings.

It’s either an astronomical coincidence, or it’s proof of Divine Inspiration. I choose the latter.
 
Last edited:
Indeed @Kei. Dr. Schroeder has done tremendous work in his studies of both science and the Torah. His work has helped me immensely, and I’m glad you benefitted from it as well.

Here’s the link again for anybody else interested in his groundbreaking work which gives glory unto the LORD: The Age of the Universe | Gerald Schroeder

It’s nice knowing that one can say “the Universe is both 7 days old, AND 13.8 billion years old. Since time is relative, it depends on where one is standing to determine the age of the universe”
 
Last edited:
Translation and interpretation can change the meaning entirely. e.g. It was evening, morning, the 3rd day can be translated it was the closing, the dawning of the 3rd age. The 7th day never closed (we are in it now). In Genesis 2 it refers to all 7 days as “the day of their making”, so is it 1 day or 7 days? Clearly, apart from the obvious scientific basis, just from a translation and interpretation perspective, it stands on tentative ground.
 
The 7th day was said to be closed with the Resurrection. Sunday, the 8th day, the new 1st day of all Creation, now renewed with the victory of Christ.
 
Thanks @Kei I did not know that.

Do you know where that was said or taught by any chance?
 
The “Majesty” of evolution part is weak. Creation of either type is majestic, and both are equally easy for God. It’s not a matter of " wow this one is hard, but that one is impossible!" suggested by your billiards analogy. Creation took no effort at all with God.

The “if God created an ‘aged’ world than He is a card-shark, liar, trickster, etc.” argument is even worse. It’s directly comparable with the “Why would God lie to us and say it was six-days” argument that YEC puts forward. Both are weak and highly self-focused.

I am interested in seeing how you can square the necessary theology of Adam and Eve, original sin, death, life, and Eden with evolution. Personally, I think it is impossible, but I’m definitely eager to see someone actually give it a shot.
 
Awesome.

Must be my patron Saint Spyridon the Thaumaturge interceding on my behalf to increase my knowledge!
 
One way to battle ignorance is to point out the harmful effects of it. “Scandal.” “Causing little ones to stumble”.
Things like YEC lead to a distorted view of Christians and Christianity. At this time it is more important than ever the the Gospel present a well reasoned appeal to others. Think about how many times Christ appeals to common sense. “You have heard it said”, “Look at this and that…” Part of being Christian is to be a good and honest observer of the world around you. Science helps with that.

When we go astray:
On the one hand we’d like the world to see marriage through truthful eyes that can perceive natural law.
On the other hand YEC proposes a superstitious view of religion that cannot be effective. This causes others to reject the Christian worldview on marriage and other issues.
Scandal is a problem.
 
Last edited:
@goout

Exactly the reason why I combat YEC so vehemently. It places a stumblingblock in front of people and turns them away from Christianity.

St. Augustines words were so very prophetic.
 
the bible does not say anything about a 6000 year old earth/universe so that has nothing to do with science or theology.

The natural world is knowable. Therefore we can know how the natural world was made. I see no conflict between Evolution and Genesis. God days are not measured by natural time measurements so if he took billions of years to create the universe and us and said it took 6 days in scripture then both are true. One applies to us and one applies to God.

We are all made from the same clay as the earth. We have the same elements as all life around us. So God formed us from clay. He formed us over millennium of time from simple celled creatures to multi celled creatures. Then he breathed into one of his creation and made man and then made one woman. I believe he made only one human pair that he gave full knowledge of himself to and also gave free will to.

so for me there is no conflict between science and religion. I also think it is way, way more God like to make the universe as he did than to snap his fingers and it just popped into being like ‘magic’.

the complexity alone staggers the human mind.
 
ChunkMonk said:
I am interested in seeing how you can square the necessary theology of Adam and Eve, original sin, death, life, and Eden with evolution. Personally, I think it is impossible, but I’m definitely eager to see someone actually give it a shot.
Click to expand...
By comparison:
I’d like to square the origin, purpose, and meaning of my existence with the biological facts of my birth and death.
What you call a “necessary theology” surrounds this human search for truth, meaning, identity, and purpose in regards to our own existence, just like theology surrounding the creation of the first man.

How about the Incarnation of the Second Person? Also possessing a full human biological component.

These things can never really be squared with one another, as you say it is impossible.
That’s our concept of mystery. When the divine and human intersect, we have mystery.
Mystery is in invitation into the unseen fullness of life, not the dead end of unsolvable contradiction. Mystery does not have to be solved to our satisfaction, and it should not be, because God is God and we are not.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think Christian evolutionists should try to avoid the theological implications of yheir belief by hand-waving it away as “too mysterious to comprehend”.
goout said:
One way to battle ignorance is to point out the harmful effects of it. “Scandal.” “Causing little ones to stumble”.
Click to expand...
Except you have no right to make that judgement when the Church itself has not.
 
Last edited:
I would argue that Adam and Eve are not “theology” at all, but simply our creation mythology. Most comparative mythology experts would state that mythology is metaphor and how you interpret it determines it’s level of reality. So, Adam and Eve are not a necessary theology at all. They just are. It’s a story about our creation that is meant to be symbolic and is told in a way that we can understand it throughout all of history. Interpreting it literally doesn’t make much sense to me at all.
 
One must accept a literal Adam and Eve though.

Sts. Adam and Eve are venerated as Saints throughout Eastern Christianity.

I’m not saying we have to interpret Genesis 2 literalistically, but rather that we can’t relegate Adam and Eve to mythology to the point where we say they didn’t even exist. Such a thing is anathema to orthodox Christianity.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Sts. Adam and Eve, pray for us
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top