Day-age creationism: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:26, 17 August 2010

Day-Age creationism, a type of Old Earth creationism, is an interpretation of the creation accounts found in Genesis. It holds that the six days referred to in the Genesis account of creation are not ordinary 24-hour days, but rather are much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years). The Genesis account is then interpreted as an account of the process of cosmic evolution, providing a broad base on which any number of theories and interpretations are built. Proponents of the Day-Age Theory can be found among both theistic evolutionists (who accept the scientific consensus on evolution) and progressive creationists (who reject it). The theories are said to be built on the understanding that the Hebrew word yom is used to refer to a time period, with a beginning and an end, and not necessarily that of a 24 hour day.

The differences between the Young-Earth interpretation of Genesis and modern scientific theories such as Big Bang, abiogenesis, and common descent are significant: the Young-Earth interpretation says that everything in the universe and on Earth was created in six 24-hour days (with a seventh day of rest), estimated by them to have occurred some 6,000 years ago; whereas recent mainstream scientific theories put the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years and that of the Earth at 4.6 billion years, with various forms of life, including humans, being formed continually thereafter.

Quantum Physics and Relativity show us that time is not constant. Time slows near large gravitational objects, or when an object on which time is measured moving faster. Next to a black hole time stops completely.^{[citation needed]} If the universe began with the Big Bang, very high numbers of micro black holes would have, by today's clocks, slowed time such that it could have taken many billions of current earth-clock years to create the universe in a much shorter amount of time.

The Day-Age Theory tries to reconcile these views by arguing that the Creation "days" were not ordinary 24-hour days, but actually lasted for long periods of time—or as the theory's name implies: the "days" each lasted an age. According to this view, the sequence and duration of the Creation "days" is representative or symbolic of the sequence and duration of events that scientists theorize to have happened, such that Genesis can be read as a summary of modern science, simplified for the benefit of pre-scientific humans.

History

The Old-Earth figurative view can be traced back at least to Saint Augustine in the 5th Century who pointed out, in De Genesi ad Litteram, that the "days" in Genesis could not be literal days, if only because Genesis itself tells us that the sun was not made until the fourth "day".^[1]

Scottish lawyer and geologist Charles Lyell published his famous and influential work Principles of Geology in 1830-1833 which interpreted geologic change as the steady accumulation of minute changes over enormously long spans of time and that natural processes, uniformly applied over the length of that existence (uniformitarianism), could account for what men saw and studied in creation.

In the mid 19th century, American geologist Arnold Guyot sought to harmonize science and scripture by interpreting the "days" of Genesis 1 as epochs in cosmic history. Similar views were held by a protégé of Lyell, John William Dawson, who was a prominent Canadian geologist and commentator, from an orthodox perspective, on science and religion in the latter part of the 19th century. Dawson was a special creationist, but not a biblical literalist, admitting that the days of creation represented long periods of time, that the Genesis flood was only 'universal' from the narrator's limited perspective, and that it was only humanity, not the Earth itself, that was of recent creation.^[2]

American geologist and seminarian George Frederick Wright was originally a leading Christian Darwinist. However reaction against higher criticism in biblical scholarship and the influence of James Dwight Dana led him to become increasingly theologically conservative. By the first decade of the 20th century he joined forces with the emerging fundamentalist movement in advocating against evolution, penning an essay for The Fundamentals entitled "The Passing of Evolution". In these later years Wright believed that the "days" of Genesis represented geological ages and argued for the special creation of several plant and animal species "and at the same time endowed them with the marvellous capacity for variation which we know they possess." His statements on whether there had been a separate special creation of humanity were contradictory.^[3]

Probably the most famous day-age creationist was American politician, anti-evolution campaigner and Scopes Trial prosecutor William Jennings Bryan. Unlike many of his conservative followers, Bryan was not a strict biblical literalist, and had no objection to "evolution before man but for the fact that a concession as to the truth of evolution up to man furnishes our opponents with an argument which they are quick to use, namely, if evolution accounts for all the species up to man, does it not raise a presumption in behalf of evolution to include man?" He considered defining the days in Genesis 1 to be twenty-four hours to be a pro-evolution straw man argument to make attacking creationists easier, and admitted at Scopes that the world was far older than six thousand years, and that the days of creation were probably longer than twenty-four hours each.^[4]

American Baptist preacher and anti-evolution campaigner William Bell Riley, "The Grand Old Man of Fundamentalism", founder of the World Christian Fundamentals Association and of the Anti-Evolution League of America was another prominent day-age creationist in the first half of the 20th century, who defended this position in a famous debate with friend and prominent young Earth creationist Harry Rimmer.^[5]

One modern defender is astronomer Hugh Ross, who in 1994 wrote Creation and Time defending the Day-Age view in great detail,^[6] and who founded the Day-Age Creationist ministry Reasons to Believe.^[7]

Interpretation of Genesis

Day-Age creationists differ from young Earth creationists in how they interpret a number of crucial Hebrew words in Genesis, and thus how they interpret the genealogies and creation account contained in it.

They point out that the Hebrew words for father ('ab) and son (ben) can also mean forefather and descendent, respectively, and that the Biblical scripture occasionally "telescopes"genealogies to emphasise the more important ancestors. This, they argue, renders genealogically-based dating of the Creation, such as the Ussher chronology, to be inaccurate.

They admit that yom can mean a twenty-four hour solar day, but argue that it can refer to an indefinitely long period of time. It is in this sense that the word is employed in Genesis 2:4, with a "day" of God's total creation taking place in the course of "days" of creation.^[6]

Chronological Criticism of Day-Age Creationism

A criticism of Day age creationism's interpretation of Genesis as each day being an age rather than an actual day is that the biblical account is not in chronological order. Science has evidence that suggests a different order of events.

There are several scientific issues with Genesis. First, God is said to have created the heavens and the earth on the first day, but created light on the second day. Scientific evidence demonstrates that the universe is roughly 13.75 billion years old, while earth is merely 4.54 billion years old. Light is undeniably older than the Earth. Secondly, the sun and the moon were created on the fourth day, after the creation of vegetation, which was created on the third day. There is no evidence of any vegetation living before the birth of the sun. Thirdly, birds are said to be created before land animals, which defies the evolutionary consensus that birds descended from land dinosaurs. 1 day=1 era[uniformalism] important of all no holly book lays emphasis detaled,pinpoint and deadly accurate reality and rather it is written to make ununderstandable things to be grasped by common man

Notes

^ Pennock(2000), p 19
^ Numbers(2006), p21-23
^ Numbers(2006), p33-50, 82
^ Numbers(2006) p58
^ Numbers(2006) p82
^ ^a ^b Pennock(2000), p20
^ About Our Founder, Reasons to Believe

References

Numbers, Ronald (November 30, 2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition. Harvard University Press. pp. 624 pages. ISBN 0674023390. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Pennock, Robert T. (February 28, 2000). Tower of Babel, The Evidence against the New Creationism. The MIT Press. pp. 451 pages. ISBN 026266111X. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

External links

Answers In Creation—Another website promoting the Day-Age Model
Day-Age Genesis One Interpretation—Article advocating the Day-Age Theory
Days of Creation—List of articles opposing the Day-Age Theory
Reasons To Believe—Website promoting the Day-Age Model