The Dawn Treader

"I am an old earth, young Adam creationist -- i.e. "day age" view believing Adam was created (not evolved) thousands (not millions) of years ago."

Why on earth would God let the earth age for several billion years, including the appearance and evolution of primates into hominids that became more and more like modern humans, then suddenly let all these hominids die off and replace them with a divinely-introduced species--or do you not believe in evolution at all?

Jeff:

I'm curious: If you already concede that the Earth is millions of years old, what's magical about man having been created some 10,000 years ago? (And in any case, I thought the going estimate was 6,000...) Why are periods of time figured differently for the first six "days" than thereafter?

"Why are periods of time figured differently for the first six "days" than thereafter?"

In Biblical Hebrew, the word for day can literally mean a long but definite period of time -- like it sometimes means in English (e.g. "back in my day"). There is no rule that one long period of time needs to match another.

"Why on earth would God let the earth age for several billion years, including the appearance and evolution of primates into hominids that became more and more like modern humans, then suddenly let all these hominids die off and replace them with a divinely-introduced species--or do you not believe in evolution at all?"

The second question first. Do I believe in evolution at all? I believe that certain phenotypes change within a basic animal type over time ... like finch beaks might change due to weather patterns (temporarily) ... or bacteria might develop a resistance to a certain antibiotic. I don't believe humans evolved from hominids. I believe hominids were bipedal animals.

Why would God create hominids? For the same reason that he creates fascinating life that lives on the bottom of the ocean that no one but He sees. For His own glory, and because he obviously loves to create. He could have created one sun, one planet and one moon and quit -- yet he gave us a glorious universe to marvel at on a clear night.

Besides, when you exist outside of time, what is a year or a billion years anyway? Everything is in the present from God's reference point.

Hugh Ross makes some interesting speculations too as David noted above. Maybe Ross is right, who really knows?

"Of course, I also think you and I are bipedal animals. ;-)"

According to Gen 1:26, God speaking through his servant Moses disagrees with you ... and says you are made in his image and are to have dominion over the animals.

Why a $16/$20 conference? Sounds like money to me. If you have scientific knowledge, why would you not immediately publish it widely online? I bet they have vids for sale too. And at the end of the vid, an appeal for more money, maybe for an edu-program. Tell me when I can see the scientific evidence that is supposed to convince the world, and in these dire times, when time is short. When Joe Atheist doesn't have to shell out $20 to watch a series of carefully designed lectures, and has the data to look at himself, (and myself for that matter...) Then I may change my tune. Until then I remind myself that John 3:16 doesn't say how old you must believe the earth to be in order to be saved. Interesting, but nothing I will latch onto, unless, as I say, the information becomes available gratis, for the purpose of spreading truth, not just making a buck.
-Taq

Trying to get beyond 50,000 reaches beyond the Biblical record and the religious objects.

But not beyond the genetic evidence. I'm not so sure you can just stop at 50kya. Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't be that firm about the Biblical record even beyond that time frame. Actually, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the phrase "Biblical record" here. The Bible, IMHO, touches on some matters that touch on what we'd consider a "record" of natural history, but we have to be really, really careful about that relationship, otherwise we run into the land mines that have gotten us into this mess.

While I don't care for AiG, I do join with Ken Ham in standing against capital E evolution.

I'm sorry, I wish I could be so charitable. I'm really trying to be and I'm wrestling with this in my own heart. It's too easy as a non-YEC to become what you despise (not you, me) -- a haughty and narrow-minded ideologue on an issue that shouldn't be central to Christian unity. But you're right about AIG's influence in the evangelical subculture, and it's deeply painful to me. It's one of the primary things that attracts me to Emergent. Let's get "beyond all that," as the Emergent folks like to say. But it ain't gonna happen. This is one of the things that truly makes me fear for the future of the evangelical church -- as we go further down this road, we become an intellectual ghetto, built on a foundation of untruth.

"Let's get "beyond all that," as the Emergent folks like to say. But it ain't gonna happen. This is one of the things that truly makes me fear for the future of the evangelical church -- as we go further down this road, we become an intellectual ghetto, built on a foundation of untruth."

All I can say is, don't throw out the baby with the bath water. :)

My take on my dogmatic YEC brothers and sisters is that they are passionate about defending God's word. I like that about them. I wish we all were as passionate. Do they sometimes go over the top toward other Christians? I think so. Then again, some old earthers are guilty of that too. Incidentally, I count many YEC brothers and sisters as close friends. I know very few who hold to the views of the atonement that AIG holds (in relation to the age of the earth).

I view the efforts of the dogmatic YECers like Paul viewed the rival preachers in Philippians 1

http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Philippians+1%3A12-18&sourceid=mozilla-search

The YEC'ers are persuasive to many people. Many YEC'ers are out there leading people to Christ -- even if their view of the age of the earth is held dogmatically and raised to a major doctrinal issue.

But like you said, we dare not become what we hate! If you truly believe that Christians need to get "beyond all that", then you need to put it into practice and get beyond getting irritated by YEC'ers who major in the minors and are dogmatic about it. (btw, I am preaching to myself too ... not just you)

The numbers just don't work. I don't think you can get from a population of two in 8,000 BCE to a population of six billion today, not knowing what we know

This isn't quite accurate. Mainstream (non-creationist, non ID) scientists place our most common recent ancestor anywhere from the paleolithic to the first of second millenium BC. See Wikipedia discussion here. So, you certainly can, and it seems that we in fact did, all come from one couple in the recent past.

The bigger problem is two-fold: (1) the mtDNA evidence which places genetic "Eve" about 100kya; and (2) the genetic studies that show far earlier markers in the modern human lineage.

As to (1), the 100kya date is by no means firm. 40kya might not be out of the ballpark.

As to (2), we'd have to get into a discussion of what those markers represent. Are they sure evidence of descent from earlier hominids? Do they suggest a gradual emergence of "modern humans?" Much of the paleontological / archeological evidence seems to support the sudden emergence of much of what we consider "human culture" 10-40kya. Perhaps we are in some way "related" to those earlier hominds, whether by ordinary common descent, through God's use of pre-existing genetic material ("dust"), or through use of design patterns, and the apparent "cultural explosion" reflects the imputation of God's image.

The 50,000 year estimate comes from the genealogies. To stretch the gaps in the genealogies to accomodate Adam being a million years old would require a gigantic assumption that I don't think many Biblical scholars Jewish or Christian would agree with.

Agreed. But I don't think 100kya as opposed to 50kya would be completely untenable.

Now if you are saying all of the creation accounts and the genealogies are figurative, then you would need to make that case. I'd be interested to hear a scriptural appeal for why all of the creation accounts and genealogies are basically figurative.

No, it's not my view that those narratives are completely figurative. However, I think they do contain figurative elements. The serpent in the garden, for example, seems to me clearly to be a figure of Satan, not a "literal" snake. I also think the "tree of life" and the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" likely are figures representing perhaps some kind of liturgical or cultural practice. In addition, I think the "days," while not "figurative," probably are best understood as "analogical" -- they are neither 24-hour periods nor clearly distinct epochs in natural history, but rather are periods of God's activity in defining the functions of the creation. This approach, BTW, is possible within the context of inerrancy (at least broadly defined). See Wheaton Prof. John Walton's NIV Application Commentary and C. John Collins' recent commentary (Collins is a Reformed guy, BTW -- I think from Covenant). On the geneologies and pre-Adamic hominids, see John Jefferson Davis' essay in Inerrancy and Common Sense (don't be put off by the title, it's a pro-inerrancy book). Personally I think it's possible to go even further than Davis does in finding the geneologies "non-literal" -- there are some interesting paralells in the line of Seth and the line of Cain that suggest some of the names in those lines might be representative of multiple individuals or groups.

In other words, don't appeal to putative genetic evidence ....

Here I might differ with you somewhat on hermeneutics. I don't see the problem with appealing to extra-Biblical evidence to help clarify the meaning of the text. If the extra-Biblical evidence tells us the Sun doesn't literally rise and set, it's wise for us to revisit the text on that basis. I'd agree that extra-Biblical evidence can't dictate the meaning of the text, but I think there has to be a subtle and nuanced interplay between our different sources of knowledge. I'd also say this: I'm probably a little more open than you to the idea that scripture isn't intended to reveal anything about "science" as we understand it at all, and therefore we shouldn't expect precise concord between scripture and modern scientific or historical knowledge. I don't think this means scripture is ahistorical, but I do think it counsels great care in discerning what the text is meant to reveal. Here again, I think John Jefferson Davis' essay that I mentioned above is helpful; also the work of Conrad Hyers.

It also strikes me as more than a little ironic that you cite such a highly speculative model-based conclusion as an "in fact," while continuing to reserve judgment on far-less-speculative evolutionary models. :)

Tom, I think you're misunderstanding the MRCA model I referred to. here's a cite to one of the relevant papers. I don't think it's intended to compete with the mitochondrial Eve / Adam studies. Those studies trace only the female or male lineages, respectively. The other MRCA studies model population growth based on both male and female lineages together. So, both the mtDNA studies and the other studies showing more recent MRCA can be true at the same time. Also, I wouldn't call the MRCA studies merely speculative -- take a look at the modeling that was done, it seems pretty robust.

So what does this mean for our discussion? It's certainly possible for us to have recent MRCAs, though the mtDNA studies suggest those MRCAs also had ancestors to whom we can trace our lineage on the maternal or paternal sides. From a theological perspective, I think the relevant questions are (1) were those more distant anscestors "human" in the sense of being made "in the image of God"; and (2) in what way are we connected to those more distant anscestors -- through Darwinian common descent, direct creation using preexisting genetic material, direct creation using preexising body / genetic plans, or some combination thereof? However the theologians hash those things out, it seems to me we don't have to abandon the concept of a real Adam who is the federal head of humanity and a real Eve who is the "mother of all the living," who lived within time frames that can reasonably fit the Bible narratives. (I don't think, however, we can say, as the young earth people do, that there were no hominids of any kind before 10kya or so ago.) BTW, another interesting resource on all this is Ross and Rana, Who Was Adam.

My Boaz's Ruth:

Thanks for clarifying the $20 ticket. Hopefully that will clear up misperceptions about this conference being tainted by profits -- it cleared it up for me, anyway.

BTW, I join with Answers in Genesis in critiquing Darwinian evolution and naturalism.

I disagree with their theology that connects the atonement of Jesus Christ with a 24 hour creation day.

For the record, I don't revile young earthers. Most of my family and friends are young earthers. They are great people. I love them.

I just revile bad teaching, that's all.