One of these days, I’ll get around to discussing Dr. John Walton’s take on Genesis 1 in greater detail. For now, I’ve got a few observations from the last several Answers in Genesis e-newsletters:
Here’s one that, even as a YEC, would cause me to do a double take (emphasis mine):
Molecules-to-man evolution is a belief concerning what supposedly happened in the past, but no one was there to see it happen. Thus, evolutionists are free to postulate stories about abiogenesis (non-living chemicals evolving into life), stellar evolution, or ape-men without direct observation. Such scenarios are merely belief statements. The ideas Darwin espoused were his beliefs concerning the past. They are not science in the sense of scientists being able to observe these things actually happening. However, we do not have to depend on mere guesses about the origin of the universe and life. We can thankfully refer back to the eye-witness account—the Bible.
I’m curious to know who that “eye-witness” is that saw God create the heavens and the earth. Anyone?
Here’s another that requires some creative eisegesis:
The Bible clearly teaches that when God created Adam and Eve, the world was perfect (i.e., “very good”). There was no death and bloodshed.
“Clearly teaches” that the world was “perfect”? I’d be curious to know how many hands would raise if one asked a group of people who thought “very good” can be equated with “perfect.” Moreover, what passage of Scripture teaches that there was no death or bloodshed prior to Adam’s fall? I couldn’t answer that as a YEC, and I can’t now. Consider this: What good is a threat of physical death (the result of eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) without an example in nature?
From the same newsletter comes this statement, with which I can tentatively agree (with one exception):
But a Christian who believes in evolution over eons as told by evolutionists must also believe that God used death and bloodshed over millions of years as a way to bring man into existence. For them, the fossil record is not a sign of God’s judgment in the Flood, but of the cruel nature of the world they believe God created.
The one exception is AiG’s use of the word “cruel.” What makes animal death “cruel”? By what standard is AiG evaluating the “circle of life”? To me, AiG appears to be making a subjective judgment on the nature of animal death, as the idea has absolutely no Scriptural support. From my perspective, the concept of “no animal death before the Fall” is required to provide the YEC paradigm logical consistency; I can respect that. However, I think the idea creates more problems than it solves. Can one successfully argue that Adam never performed a Pink Panther (you know, “dead-ant, dead-ant, dead-ant, dead-ant, dead-ant, dead-ant, dead-ant, de, de, de, de, dead-ant”) during his walks through the Garden? What to do about the high unemployment rate for trillions of bacteria that reside in our own digestive system to keep it healthy?
This leads me to a question that, as a YEC, I had never really considered before: Why would a single act of rebellion by mankind cause the vast transformation of his “perfect” world (and, by extension, the universe) into a cosmos of chaos and violence? Did God ever threaten Adam with that consequence? Or should we only limit God’s threat to what the Bible really says:
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2:16-17, ESV; emphasis mine)
That’s it, folks. Only man’s longevity, caused by his inability to access the Tree of Life (Gen 3:22), was threatened. Nothing else. Every other consequence is purely imagined. Of course, with man’s access to the Garden denied, there were some other sub-consequences (Gen 3:17-19). I’ll discuss those in a future post.