The GeoChristian

The Earth. Christianity. They go together.

If there were no other options than Ken Ham’s way or Bill Nye’s way, I would choose…

Today, February 4, 2015, marks the one-year anniversary of the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye “Is creation a viable model of origins?” debate. After the debate, I wrote a post-debate analysis, in which I pointed out that both speakers made some valid points, and both speakers made some blunders.

Ken Ham believes that the Bible requires us to hold to a young Earth, and so he goes about looking for scientific evidence to back up his interpretation. Bill Nye also believes that the Bible teaches a young Earth, and he rejects Christianity.

Both speakers acknowledged that there are Christians and other religious people who hold to some sort of middle ground. I am in that middle ground: I am a Christian who believes the Bible does not set a date for the original creation, and I believe God may have used processes (e.g. biological evolution) to some degree to accomplish his creation objectives.

But what if there were only two choices? What if our only two options really were “young Earth creationism” or “naturalistic cosmological and biological evolution?” Which way would I go?

For me, the choice would be fairly straight-forward. My readers all know that I think young Earth creationism is a complete failure scientifically. Neither its arguments for a young Earth, nor its arguments for Noah’s flood being responsible for most of Earth’s geological features, hold any credibility.

So if given only two choices–young Earth creationism, or atheistic naturalism–I would unhesitatingly pick…

Young Earth creationism.

Why?

Because what I would have to believe in order to be an atheist is even more out of touch with reality than is young Earth creationism.

The statement

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,”

is much more credible than

“The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be,”

or

“In the beginning nothing created everything.”

I find the classic arguments for the existence of God, such as the cosmological argument and the moral argument, to be compelling. Young-Earth creationism functions within a universe that could really exist. Atheism does not. This universe runs by laws–natural and moral–that came from somewhere. Atheism functions in a universe that is run by laws, but has no explanation for where the universe/multiverse, along with its laws, came from.

Fortunately, I don’t have to choose either Ken Ham’s way, or Bill Nye’s way. The Bible does not require a young Earth. Science does not demand naturalism.

Grace and Peace

——————–

Notes:

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” — Genesis 1:1

“The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be.” — Carl Sagan

“In the beginning nothing created everything.” — Not a quote from an atheist that I know of, but a good summary of one of the very few options open to atheists. The only other option I can think of is that the universe/multiverse is itself eternal, which doesn’t answer the basic question of “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

February 3, 2015 - Posted by | Apologetics, Atheism, Creationism, Young-Earth creationism | ,

5 Comments »

  1. I don’t see a problem with OEC at all-in fact it helps us to understand the whole Bible better. All the laws of nature that man has discovered are in fact God’s laws. There are several verses in the Bible that tells us HOW God created the Earth as a planet, HOW He created the supercontinent Pangaea (called ‘Earth’ in Genesis) and even HOW He created the ocean floor before He created the Ocean. He did this ‘ by His great wisdom and power’ and none of His own laws of nature were violated.
    I see a real problem with YECism because it ignores the biblical truths of the angelic realm. The angels were on the Earth thousands of years before mankind came on the scene and if fail to understand the power and intelligence of the angelic realm then we can only have a very superficial understanding of what Christianity is really all about.

    Like

    Comment by Leander R Pimenta | February 4, 2015

  2. Leander — I obviously see no problem with OEC either.

    But if given a choice between YEC and atheism, I would choose YEC.

    Like

    Comment by geochristian | February 4, 2015

  3. Good post; with all the heated rhetoric between OEC and YEC this is quite encouraging

    Like

    Comment by SLIMJIM | February 7, 2015

  4. I like this post too. I am very bothered when I hear Christians claim they have more in common with atheists than young earth believers.

    Like

    Comment by Andy Orlovsky | March 7, 2015

  5. On the question: why is there something rather than nothing., I’d be interested to know, why shouldn’t there be something rather than nothing? Isn’t it possible that the default is “something”?

    Like

    Comment by Rodny F | July 9, 2015


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

%d bloggers like this: