The Creationist Crisis (Part Two)

After a recent blog post about the Ken Ham Bill Nye debate at Liberty University ( ), I had a brief exchange with a commenter who identified as Paul. Paul took issue with my calling Ken Ham a biblical literalist—and my saying that this was the reason he could not look at the scientific evidence honestly.

In our subsequent exchange, Paul made the following assertions:

If you interpret Genesis as figurative, that cause problems with what the Bible says elsewhere (example: Romans 5:12 says that death is a result of sin, but if evolution is true then death existed before Adam and Eve existed).

 Of course the days in Genesis 1 are 24-hour days. If they weren’t, you’d have problems with Exodus 20:11, Exodus 31:17, as well as other verses. So, yes, it is natural to read Genesis 1 as literal 24-hour days.

 Like I said, when Ken Ham responded with “I’m a Christian”, I think he means that there is no scientific or historical evidence that would contradict the Christian worldview.

My friends who were not raised in a Conservative Evangelical church do not understand this logic—or, from their perspective, illogic. What does one part of scripture’s relation to another have to do with an analysis of the scientific evidence?

I want to explain to them the basic theology behind this insistence on young-earth creationism.

Premillennial Dispensationalism was developed in the late 1800s by John Nelson Darby, and it harmonizes the entire Bible into an all-encompassing history of not just God’s dealing with humanity, but the story of the entire universe from start to finish. It is a map of world events and a guide for looking at history, judging present crises, and knowing with certainty what will come in the future.

According to this system, the purpose of all creation is God’s relationship with humanity, which he carries out according to seven different governing systems or dispensations:

1. Innocence: begins with the literal six-day creation and ends when Adam and Eve screw up

2. Conscience: everyone screws this up and has to be drowned, except for Noah and his family

3. Government: this takes us from Noah to the promise that Abraham will father nations

4. Promise: from Abraham to Moses and the Law

5. Law: this dispensation takes us from Moses to Jesus

6. Grace: the dispensation in which we are living right now

7. Millennial Kingdom: after the Rapture and the seven years of the Great Tribulation

Before the first dispensation is eternity past, in which only God exists; after the thousand-year rule of the Millennial Kingdom, is eternity future, in which human beings exist consciously in one of two places.

I remember Sunday school charts in the dank church basement explaining this system of human history. There were some variations–and I remember some hot controversies over disagreements regarding things like whether or not Christians would have to suffer through the Great Tribulation–but they all followed the same basic pattern. Here is one done by Clarence Larkin so you can get an idea:

This tightly structured harmonization of the entire Bible into one big story of universal history, coupled with the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy—the Bible does not contain one iota of mistaken or false information—makes it impossible for Conservative Evangelicals (Fundamentalists) to look honestly at the scientific evidence. If one tenet falls, the whole house collapses.

Several years ago I blogged about a group of former Liberty students here in town who have left their childhood faith:

The belief system they’ve been taught all their lives is a theology of one calcified piece, each point taught with the same absolute certainty as every other. They begin to notice oddities in this theological landscape. A stone seems fake, held in place unnaturally—say the doctrine of verbal, plenary biblical inspiration and its subsequent inerrancy; or the prohibition against women in the ministry; or the insistence on a literal, twenty-four-hour, six-day creation six thousand years ago—and they get suspicious, start to kick around.

 They kick away a stone—decide, for example, that they cannot believe in a literal talking snake causing all the world’s woes any more than they could believe in a literal, historical Pandora. The one stone falls away, and then another falls after it, and with that the collapse begins.

 The ground crumbles from beneath them in outward circles like ripples on water. Everything their lives were built on falls away until they are floating, totally unmoored, casting about among the twisting and drifting fragments of their childhood faith, trying to cobble something together that they can live with.

Young-earth creationists cannot look honestly at the evidence because the specter of this happening to them looms over the whole conversation—and what do they have after that? They have staked their entire life on this system’s being historically and scientifically factual, every jot and tittle of it.

I was in a discussion once with a longtime pastor, who slammed our discussion closed by yelling at me, “So you think I wasted my life all those years at that church?”

I have been personally attacked (in Christian love, I am assured) in private emails by individuals with whom I have not spoken in thirty years and more. They feel betrayed. I was raised better than this. There is judgment in their words, yes, but I believe most of it comes from a place of fear.

I haven’t thought of these things for a very long time; I settled them years ago for myself, and not without a great struggle—I would say it is not unlike getting yourself disentangled from a cult. Because of the company I keep, I actually thought Fundamentalist theology and its biblical literalism was in decline.

It might be in decline, I don’t know. If it is, it is not going quietly.


2 thoughts on “The Creationist Crisis (Part Two)

  1. Yes, “Young-earth creationists cannot look honestly at the evidence,” But, also, they cannot look honestly at the Bible. They do not even follow their own standard when it comes to the first two verses of Genesis. See

    And there argument based, as in comments above, on “Exodus 20:11” does not meet any standards of sound exegesis.


  2. Our enemies will first assail the health of our commerce, throwing up this objection and that to innovative methods and approaches designed to expand our prosperity, and thus our freedom. Their old-fashioned clinging to obsolete ideas only signals their extinction. In the end, we must pity them: we are going forward with joy and hope; they are being left behind, mired in fear.

    from “Persuasion Nation” by George Saunders


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s