Guest Opinion

Dr. Dirt recently reviewed the thoughts of Dr. Hugh Ross in relation to Creationism. Dr. Dirt, a veterinarian by trade, no doubt has a grasp on things of the scientific realm. Dirt’s contention, however, that a 4.5 Billion year-old Earth could in fact stay loyal to the Biblical account is contrary not only to orthodox Christian views, but also to Biblical teaching.

I understand Dirt’s point of view. Using Dr. Hugh Ross’ book A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy as a jumping off point, Dirt takes a very post-modern approach to making Christianity a bit more rational - defend the certainty of God’s creation while at the same time disputing God’s account of it. Perhaps God is a great creator, but terrible story-teller.

Beginning as many old-Earth theorists do, Dirt acknowledges that “the scientific community almost uniformly agrees that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.” So-called “consensus” is not an acceptable argument in the scientific realm. Consensus is fleeting. In fact, the current spread of guesses concerning the Earth’s age among the scientific “community” is anywhere from 3.3 to 6.5 billion years. In case you didn’t know, that’s a gigantic spread. So much for consensus. Secondly, any scientific consensus has a negative effect on scientific achievement because, as Ben Stein points out in the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, as soon as the cogs that spin the wheels of government or institutional grants decide what is “mainstream” among the scientific community, anyone with an opposing point of view is ostracized and cast out of the conversation (and the opportunity to financially benefit from those grants), thereby assuring hegemony in the “consensus.”

Dirt and Ross assert that Evolution theory does not stand in opposition to the Genesis account. My assertion is that Evolution theory most certainly does stand in opposition to the Genesis account, and also stands in opposition to sound Scientific Theory.

Ross’ book throws out evidence of an aged Earth, which at face-value I have no problem accepting. Although the fallacy and inaccuracy of radio-active carbon dating has been well-documented because of a plethora of unknown variables, the Biblical literalists have no problem accepting the basic tenets of an aged Earth. When God created man, he did not create an embryo - but a fully grown human being. When God created vegetation on the third day, certainly He created the fully grown Oak and not an acorn. Likewise, there is an account in the second chapter of John’s Gospel that explains to us this very concept. In the account, Jesus takes six barrels of water and turns it into six barrels of wine. In the account, the person in charge of the feast was very impressed with the high quality of wine that Jesus produced. Fine wine is greatly aged. And yet Jesus did not have to wait for his newly created wine to ferment with age. And yet, in His miraculous power, it was well-aged. I do not think it is a coincidence that the Gospel writer included the detail that it was, in fact, six vats of wine. In six days of creation, God created a perfectly mature Earth - the only kind of Earth that could provide and sustain a growing and expanding human race.

The rest of Ross’ argumentation rests on easily answerable questions about such trivial matters as dinosaurs and then moves on to the main thesis; the controversy surrounding the creation account of Genesis could be alleviated if we accept alternate definitions of the word “day.” In short, if we change the word “day” to mean perhaps a solar day or stretch it to mean some gigantic stretch of time, then God’s account would mesh with the current scientific consensus.

A few Biblical problems exist here. First, the Hebrew word for day - yom - always means a literal day when used with a conjoining number. The context of the creation account (verses 4, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31 in Genesis chapter 1) is “And there was evening and there was morning, the second day (yom).” Evening plus morning cannot be interpreted as a “solar year” or any other such measure of time. It is measured quite obviously by the setting and rising of the sun.

There are other historical and contextual problems too numerous to mention here, but let it suffice to say that the motive for rewriting the Biblical text to intermingle a Biblical and secular worldview is extremely dangerous for the believer. If God creating the world in six literal days is simply unbelievable, then the resurrection of Christ must surely be unbelievable. The creation account tells us that God was finished with creation on the sixth day. Creation is over. It’s been done.

Dr. Dirt states that “new species (by cross-breeding, DNA mutation, and natural selection) have occasionally developed.” I find this surprising for doctor of natural science. Cross-breeding does not create new species - it accents or hides regressive or dominant traits within a species. Genetic mutation mutates said traits, but has never and will never create a new species (genetic mutation disrupts but does not introduce new genetic information). Finally, science has never observed any new development of a previously non-existent species.

I’m sure it’s good intentions to strive for unity among those claiming the Christian religion by redefining Biblical terms and compromising on essential values. But just like within the scientific realm, consensus doesn’t equate to truth. To quote the Apostle Paul, “let God be true though every man a liar.”