UNCLE VS. NEPHEW (Young Earth Creationism vs. Theistic Evolution)

This is a debate between my very intelligent lawyer nephew and myself. It’s long, but if you are really into this subject matter, you will find this read stimulating. This is an informal conversation highlighting various issues and  not a formal debate.


Dear Uncle Dave,

I want to tell you why I believe I do not believe in Young Earth Creationism anymore and why I think it is important for Christians to stop trying to teach that belief. I don’t think I’ll get anywhere convincing you that the Creationism approach is wrong because it’ll probably just make you upset (or at the very least disappointed in me, which may be inevitable). Young Earth Creationism will continue to be taught and preached no matter what so long as it is viewed as vital to the Christian faith. So I will try instead to convince you that believing in Young Earth Creationism (and a “literal” as opposed to more “figurative” interpretation of Genesis) should not be a tenet of Christianity by addressing FOUR major reasons cited for holding this belief.

1. Evolution is often brought up by Atheists as evidence that God does not exist – that everyone and everything is here by random coincidence.

Let the Atheists say what they want to about coincidence! We shouldn’t fight them with bad science! A smart atheist will bring you into a corner where you finally admit that “well maybe God just made the earth to look old” or “God just did it.” Now you’re employing a non-scientific answer – not necessarily wrong but something you can’t prove or disprove – in what you labeled a scientific debate.

I’m not saying that Creation doesn’t evidence the existence of God. I think the improbabilities, complexities, and awe-inspiring nature of our world shows that there is a reason for it all – but that’s not using the scientific method. You can choose to believe or disbelieve that statement, but I can’t prove the truth of it to you in a laboratory. We can argue logic and reason to prove God’s existence, but we’ve tried to take the fight to the laboratory, where it doesn’t belong.

If someone wants to believe that God does not exist, they are going to be able to believe it and feel intelligent for believing it.  We’re here to talk to those who are searching, hoping, and questioning. Let’s not introduce bad, biased, and illogical “science” into that conversation. Let’s give them a copy of Mere Christianity, not a link to Answers in Genesis.

And if you think you have convinced someone that God exists because of the lack of a missing link, you’re only setting them up for problems once another “missing link” is found.  It’s a “God in the Gaps” philosophy that fits “God” only into those things we haven’t explained. Imagine I was going through a rough time and I had a friend “randomly” call me to ask how I was doing. I feel better and think “Wow, that call proves that God exists because there is no way that he would have just called me unless God literally spoke to his heart to have him call me.” Then you find out later that another friend actually told him I was going through a rough time.  Basing your belief that God had to exist because you hadn’t found the “missing link” in causation is dangerous. I would prefer to believe – I think rightly so – that God is present throughout the process. Likewise (although that was maybe a really rough example), a belief in God should never be based in what you believe is evidence against evolution.

2. Reading Genesis as literally as possible is the only way to ensure that people can’t misinterpret the Bible or leave room for the Bible to be “untrue.”

There is a lot of healthy debate regarding interpreting the Bible, but we would all agree that historical understanding, logic, and other contextual tools are important. Ironically, some very illogical “fill in the gap” interpretations are used to support a Creationist’s viewpoint. Where did Cain find his wife? Well Adam and Eve had lots of other kids, some of whom went away and formed their own cities in other areas, and Cain went and married one of his sisters (or nieces). Where did carnivores come from? Well all those predator/prey mechanisms in millions of animals were either inherently present in herbivores in anticipation or developed in herbivores after the fall. We should be careful when what is needed to support a certain interpretation requires a lot of weird “gap fillers” to explain it. At the very least doesn’t the presence of all those “missing links” put a little caution in our conclusions? The same goes for Theistic Evolutionists, but I’m not sure you see them being so confident in a single comprehensive viewpoint (see http://biologos.org/). I don’t have a single, complete, and bulletproof answer for when Genesis is “literally” true. I’m just suggesting that some of it is likely figurative – telling the truth in figurative terms.

Also, saying some of Genesis should probably be interpreted figuratively isn’t saying it’s not true. Yes, it opens it up to various interpretations, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong to interpret it somewhat metaphorically. The Bible is full of very difficult passages that people have been interpreting in all sorts of different ways. Moreover, this notion that a “literal” interpretation ensures a correct interpretation does not make sense. Just because we believe that God literally spoke to Abraham telling him to kill his son doesn’t ensure that we’re “interpreting” the story correctly. In fact, I imagine the most important part of most stories in the Bible is not whether every detail is literal (i.e. God literally saying something to someone in an audible voice) but the point (truth) that the story represents.

And it might actually be easier than one would think to tell when the “figurative card” is being pulled when it shouldn’t. If someone is using the “figurative card” to simply deny the supernatural (see next point), they probably don’t consider the Bible as sacred anyway. Something will have to convince them of the sacred nature of scripture before we start worrying about what’s literal and what’s figurative.

3. Not reading Genesis as literally as possible tends to dissuade people from believing that miracles can occur.

Some believe that interpreting some of Genesis figuratively means that we’re “interpreting out” the improbably or impossible simply because it’s a miracle.  Sort of an “anti-supernatural bias.” This inevitably leads to one discrediting any miracle, including Jesus being born of a virgin and rising from the dead, crumbling the very hope of Christianity.

I don’t think that’s the case here. I’m interpreting at least some of Genesis figuratively because I think that’s what makes the best interpretation with all things considered. There are plenty of instances where God clearly does something that would normally be impossible without his intervention. In fact, a Theistic Evolutionist would still believe Creation itself is a miracle – just that it also involved the process of evolution. But a literal/figurative distinction is not always about believing whether a miracle occurred. For instance, I believe some of the numbers in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, were meant to represent “a large number” – and that it probably wasn’t that exact rounded number. The most straightforward and “literal” readings of some Biblical passages suggest that the earth is flat (Numbers 15:38, Ezekiel 7:2, Isaiah 11:12, Job 37:3, and Job 38:13) and that the Sun revolves around the Earth (Joshua 10:13 – as Martin Luther explained in rejection of the heliocentric theory, God stopped the Sun, not the Earth). Don’t we put a little figurative gloss over those sections today? Does that make these passages untrue?

More importantly, scientific reasoning has not been able to hurt the ideas of miracles in general – or make other miracles in the Bible any less likely. It was just as “scientifically impossible” for the Red Sea to part, virgins to give birth, and people to rise from the dead back then as it is now. Why are we bothering to set up this notion that evolution somehow hurts the probability of other miracles? It’s like we’re setting up an argument that hurts us.

4. Death and imperfection cannot theologically come before Eve had sinned.

Now here’s an interesting theological argument and one that I ardently defended for a long time. But I believe this is a rather poor attempt at trying to come up with a simple answer to a complex problem. This would take too long to get into fully, and require someone much more theologically savvy than myself, so let me take a different route.  Let’s just explore a couple implications of this answer.

Does this require us to believe that nothing in all of creation ever died or felt pain/sickness before a literal Eve ate the literal fruit?  If not, the first monstrous problem is determining which sort of organism gets to have the title of “important enough not to die.” Certainly humans would never die. What about apes, cats, dogs, lions, sharks, elephants, dolphins, sparrows, pigs, cows, chickens, spiders, cockroaches, mice, rats, bees, ants, etc.? Where was the cut-off and why? And for those creatures above the cut-off, what would control their population? Also, our bodies must have looked a lot different back then…I mean, were we even human? Why be able to sense and respond to pain if we never felt any? Why have such a complex and amazing immune system if no one ever got sick? Was our skin not able to be penetrated by sharp objects?  Did we not grow old and weak?  Were we simply Angels? Whatever the case, we would have to be so incredibly different than we are today that even relating to “Adam” – supposedly “human,” just “one of us” – would be like trying to relate to an alien or angel.  It’s almost like this interpretation would require us to think of Adam as “figuratively human” because he certainly wasn’t just like you or I.

An even greater question – if that first set of problems wasn’t bad enough – is how our current predator/prey world came into existence. Where did all these predator/prey mechanisms come from? We’re not just talking about a couple things like lion’s teeth, sharp talons, deadly snake toxins, and thick hides – we’re talking about millions and millions of organic predatory mechanisms and defenses to combat those predatory mechanisms. I’ve heard two possible explanations for this. The first is that God designed all of creation knowing that the fall would occur and therefore built in some sort of fall-back plan in creation that would activate once the fall did occur. This sounds ridiculous on a number of levels, if not extremely theologically troubling. The second is that God simply did a second round of “imperfect creation or alteration of creation” after the fall, and now we have all this stuff. If that doesn’t sound ridiculous enough, it still doesn’t answer what lions, sharks, snakes, crocodiles, eagles, etc. were doing or looked like in their “pre-carnivore” state before the fall (or what their “nonprey” looked like without the need for defense mechanisms).

So with that in mind, is this route really more intellectually and theologically sound? I’m not saying there is an easy answer to the question of “original sin” and sin’s effect on the world – I’m saying that this cute little reason to believe that the earth can’t be more than 6,000 years old because nothing could die before a literal Eve ate a literal fruit leads to really wacky, illogical, and theologically troubling implications itself. It’s not simple, easy, and clear. I don’t think we should discard a figurative explanation simply because it presents difficulties and may lead to lots of disagreement when the alternative (“literal”) explanation presents just as many if not way more difficulties.

Unfortunately, these four concerns (and others) have morphed into associating Creationism with Christianity itself. We’ve elevated this interpretation of Genesis to the point that it’s nearly crucial to believe it – proclaiming that Evolution is not only of the Devil but one of the Devil’s greatest traps ever devised.  As if forsaking that belief would ruin you as a Christian. I was so convinced that Creationism was essential to Christianity that my “evolution” in belief could have seriously damaged my faith – I’m just blessed that it hasn’t. It’s not an easy thing to do when it’s emphasized as such a vital component of the Faith.

I’m asking you to honestly consider whether you may be wrong. Obviously, I think it is unlikely that you will change your viewpoint. It would be easier for me to talk to others about this issue than to you, but I thought it was more important to open up a dialogue with you because you are people I know personally who are the impact-makers in this area. And since you know me personally, you can’t reject me as someone who doesn’t know what I’m talking about or doesn’t truly love the Lord and want to serve Him. It is also hard to send this to people whom I would consider to have better prayer lives than I do. For me to ask you to pray about it is like me asking a weight-lifter to start working out more. But I also know that I don’t have the responsibilities that you have, so I guess I get to play that card :0)


Dear Chris,

Wow, let me take a deep breath. While I have disagreements with many of your statements, I think that it was good of you to present your beliefs rather than suppressing them from me and others out of fear of making us angry, separating us, or making us disappointed. I trust that a healthy dialogue will result from it.  Since you are my only nephew, I’m stuck with you…so I have to say that you still are my favorite one. I’m not your only uncle, so I guess you can dump me after this.

I will limit my response to just some major issues that I have perceived. To deal with all of your statements would take volumes and I’m sure we will talk through these issues at later times when we are together.

I do wonder if you arrived at these conclusions from your own private quiet times with the Lord and reading Scripture for yourself, or that you’ve read other people’s commentaries on this issue. To be able to record those OT passages which, as you say, could indicate the earth being flat if we interpret them literally, I would guess that you are just reading other people’s ideas. Reading other people’s thoughts is fine if the other has the priority. If that priority is not established, then risk for error increases. The Bible says that we are not ignorant of his (devil’s) schemes. One scheme he uses on very intelligent people is to get them to base their beliefs on man’s ideas rather that what God has said.

One issue I have is your failure to construct a criterion to use to determine what should interpreted as being figurative or literal in the Bible? You seem to imply that “figurative” interpretation should be applied when:

1) Your current understanding of science conflicts with literal, and
2) If scientific problems are insurmountable in your mind with a literal interpretation (similar to #1).

These can be conducive to the Spirit of Error.

The other problem is that you did not identify specific passages in Genesis that you believe are figurative and which are literal. So it became impossible for me to determine your criterion used for judging the difference, or give an exhaustive defense of a literal interpretation.

You have also failed to specifically outline what did happen in our history and support those ideas with Scripture. You’ve told me what you have a hard time believing, but have offered no alternative. Are you, for example, a theistic evolutionist? Do you believe in the “Gap Theory”? What about the “Day-Age Theory?  These can all be easily dismissed by Scripture.

It also seems to me that if your interpretations are correct, then only very intelligent people can discern God’s Word and the “slower” folks need to depend on intelligent people to properly understand God’s Word.  This too can be dangerous. Keep in mind that Psalms 119:130 says, “The unfolding of Thy words gives light; It gives understanding to the simple.” Jesus did not choose the educated to be His first twelve Apostles. I don’t think that God wrote His Word so that ordinary folks would get it wrong. The only exception to this concept would be the Book of Revelation (and Daniel). They are obviously heavily symbolic and therefore difficult to fully understand.  I do not think God wrote Genesis in this way because I do not see any hint in Scripture that would make me think so. Plus, why would He? In prophetic Books of the Bible, I think God words things somewhat veiled so that they are not fully understood until events happen. Then people look back and perceive how accurate God’s Word is. I don’t see any motivation in God, however, to veil information about our beginnings.

All of the questions you raised that convince you that the earth cannot be 6,000 to 10,000 years old have been adequately considered by young-earth creationists, and they remain young-earthers. It is impossible to scientifically know what exactly happened and HOW it happened when the curse from sin invaded earth.  To say the least, things were radically different before the Flood and even more so before the Fall.

I’d love to deal with your reasons #1, #2, and #3, but for time’s sake, I will deal with #4 only.

You said, “Does this require us to believe that nothing in all of creation ever died or felt pain/sickness before a literal Eve ate the literal fruit?…Where is the cut-off [concerning what died and what did not]? ”

Answer = Yes and no. The same Hebrew word for “life” was used for the creation of humans and animals, not plants. So there is your “cut off” line you seek. Why? Are you kidding?! Who knows?! Do we have to know why in order to believe something that is recorded in the Bible?

In fact, plants did die before sin. God said that the green herb was to be meat for Adam. After Noah’s Ark landed, God told people they could kill animals for food. Figurative language? I don’t think so. He also put the fear of man into those animals probably to protect each kind from extinction due to man’s hunting. Did the protein content of the”green herb” suddenly decrease? Who knows? But God still said what He said.  Pain and sickness? Why would you assume that there must be pain and sickness before sin? I would guess that it’s because you assume the state of things from what you see in the earth NOW.  Everything was radically different before sin entered. Birth control in bliss a problem? Once again you are assuming that the present reproduction rates would be the same. But God knew that sin would rule temporarily, so I have no problem with Him working through what was to be. And, if sin never happened, why would He not just create more space for the numbers (since no human or animal would die).

You said, “Our bodies must have looked a lot different back then…I mean, were we even human? Why be able to sense and respond to pain if we never felt any? Why have such a complex and amazing immune system if no one ever got sick?”

Answer = Why wouldn’t Adam and Eve look human? Why is it difficult for you to believe that God made His creation knowing that sin would take over shortly following the creation of man? If there were no thorns on rose bushes before sin, and they suddenly appeared after sin (which is what the Bible says), why do you find it impossible to believe that our nervous systems would work differently after sin? Some of the knowledge required to understand these things probably goes beyond our current understanding, but perhaps someday a scientist will come along and explain how these changes took place. How do you know that just a slight change would be necessary to go from an immune system that did not kill germs to one that would kill germs? Think about this, Chris, out of all the knowledge there is, how much do we know? Half?  3/4?  1/3? The safest answer is an iota, even if that. God asked Job similar questions when Job questioned God. It caused Job’s “scientific knowledge” to “shrink a bit” (humbled him).

You said, “Where did all these predator/prey mechanisms come from? We’re not just talking about a couple things like lion’s teeth, sharp talons, deadly snake toxins, and thick hides – we’re talking about millions and millions of organic predatory mechanisms and defenses to combat those predatory mechanisms. I’ve heard two possible explanations for this. The first is that God designed all of creation knowing that the fall would occur and therefore built in some sort of fall-back plan in creation that would activate once the fall did occur.  This sounds ridiculous on a number of levels, if not extremely theologically troubling. The second is that God simply did a second round of “imperfect creation or alteration of creation” after the fall, and now we have all this stuff. If that doesn’t sound ridiculous enough, it still doesn’t answer what lions, sharks, snakes, crocodiles, eagles, etc. were doing or looked like in their “pre-carnivore” state before the fall (or what their “nonprey” looked like without the need for defense mechanisms).”

Answer = Then your belief must be that God had all those horrible things going on for millions of years, then gradually made man into His image from the carnage?? If this assumption is correct, then I dare say that your model for our history (which I am still eager to discover) has the more difficult questions to answer.  I can’t worship a god that would create via a death-dying-pain-suffering method. I do want to worship a God that did things right in the beginning.  You just cannot understand all the scientific and/or supernatural things that occurred quickly after sin entered. Our great scientists simply were not there. I could speculate on how every single issue you gave as an example could be compatible with young-earth creation thought.  You are not the first or only person to come up with problems to the young-earth belief. They even have a plausible scientific explanation of how the kangaroos got to Australia after getting off Noah’s Ark! We’ll save these speculations for an in-person talk.

Note concerning your underlined statement above (for the benefit of other readers, I underlined it, not you):  You need to explain why it is ridiculous and theologically troublesome. Maybe you are assuming that mega changes would be necessary to pull it all off, and you find that explanation too naively convenient.  However, with God’s higher thoughts than ours, and His higher ways than ours, there may have been just slight changes needed to radically change everything. Obviously there was change. The thorns are good examples.

You’ve also implied that young-earth creationists make too much of a big deal out of their young earth belief. The truth is that none of them believe it to be necessary for salvation (and I think you realize this). But they do believe there is no other reason to think we are billions of years old unless one has been “evolutionized.” When I share Christ with non-believers, this issue will not be on the tip of my tongue. Be careful not to “throw the baby out with the bath water” by rejecting young-earth creationism as a tenet of Christianity. Apart from the age-of-the-earth issue, the young-earth model asserts that the Creation and Fall of Man in Genesis is literal. People today do not know much about God and are un-churched. The Genesis account of the Fall of Man sets the stage for the Gospel because moral law was broken, that caused death, man’s own effort to cover sin did not work with God (fig leaves), innocent blood HAD to be shed to cover sin (animal skins covered them). Hence, meaning for the Cross of Christ. If the story of Adam and Eve and the Fall of Mankind is not literally true, then the Cross and resurrection looses meaning. Genesis is the entire foundation for Christianity. Finally, Jesus Christ Himself spoke of Genesis accounts as being literally true.  One cannot simply take his scissors and cut out of Genesis what does not makes sense. It creates a heretical domino affect that a Christian does not want to face.

I have a very good DVD by Dr. Andrew Snelling on the veracity and the  importance of a young-earth position. I’d be glad to send it to you if you’d like.

P.S.  Just a thought: If we are millions (billions?) of years old as an earth and, as evolutionists proclaim mankind’s history being at 100,000 to one million years on the planet, how come North America wasn’t totally populated when the white man came from Europe?  Plagues and wars will not suffice on this one.  Where are all the human graves?

P.P.S.  Well, at least I got even with you.  My words are longer than yours.  🙂


Dear Uncle Dave,

Thanks for message and sorry my response has taken a bit! Like you said, there are a bunch of things to discuss, and I’m sure we’ll get to dive into them more next time we chat. Although keeping a running conversation would probably be productive too!

I was especially hesitant to talk to you about it because this is an issue that you have dedicated (and are dedicating) so much of your time and effort into. So beyond wondering “what you’d think of me,” I didn’t want to be offensive on top of that. So – while probably taken aback – I’m glad it looks like you’d simply like to talk rather than being too offended (I hope). And on this end you’re still my favorite…hmm…I’ve only got one Godparent right? (At least I think you’re my unofficial Godfather)

My arrival to where I am now came pretty slowly (hah, “evolved” over lots and lots of time, right?). I’d say at first it was simply being bothered by some of what I considered to be very weak parts of Creationism from a logical perspective, but then dismissing them because I felt I had to believe it to be correct theologically.  So even though I wouldn’t want to argue with a scientist because I thought they had the better purely scientific argument – if I was honest – I just remained content to be a Creationist and never argue with a scientist. But as I talked with others once in a while about the issue and then did some more research on my own, I thought thatreading Genesis as literally as possible was not theologically or logically sound. But I wouldn’t just say that the problems in sciencecompletely lead me there…actually a lot of it had to do with what I felt were deceptive practices by Creationist organizations. I didn’tfeel they were approaching the issues honestly – the “teach the controversy” campaign in particular – and that bothered me. It felt like more of a dirty political campaign than honest discussion.  In fact, I began to actually feel more that I was brainwashed in the other direction – that I’m not sure I would have come to read GenesisSo, I’m not saying that God told me out of the blue that I shouldthat way at all if I hadn’t grown up with a Creationist perspective. change my perspective, but it wasn’t like this was one person’s commentary that convinced me either. Nor was it entirely a problem with the scientific probabilities that completely changed my mind.

I think the Gap Theory and Day-Age Theory are weird attempts to try and fit a strained literal interpretation of Genesis with the theory of evolution. Sort of trying to have it both ways, which doesn’t really make sense to me. I’m a theistic evolutionist. I was worried that this suggests that using the factors you described to distinguish between literal and figurative. My understanding of what is normally impossible hasn’t changed much at all (Red Sea parting, all Jesus stuff, etc.). But I also think that a simple “literal” interpretation is not correct in all cases either. I don’t think that means that you have to be extra intelligent to understand scripture, either.  Actually, I think it would be just as easy to read Genesis as a type of story that illustrates the truth of God, characteristics of God, our existence, our purpose, our current situation, God’s desired relationship with us, etc. in metaphoric terms, if not easier. In fact, I think it takes many leaps of logic and weird “gap-fillers” to even picture it literally. I’m familiar with most of the explanations of all the discrepancies and apparent contradictions with the multiple creation accounts, where Cain found his wife, etc. but I think these are all very odd and would not come naturally. To me, it makes much more sense that the beginning of Genesis is metaphorical in some way.

But with that said, I do think it’s always important to understand the context of the Bible to understand it correctly. What frustrates me is that when I could point out the many instances in the Bible where if the “average person” read a passage literally he could very easily come to a potentially harmful and wrong conclusion (earth is flat, earth is in the center of universe, God permits and occasionally encourages genocide, Paul condones if not encourages slavery, God is “jealous” in a bad way, taking communion is literally eating Jesus’s body, etc.), most pastors would say you have to understand everything in context.  And even saying “you have to understand these passages in the context of the whole Bible,” doesn’t really help much either because you’d be asking something pretty darn difficult for first-time readers. In fact, I think the theology of the necessity of having a literal 6,000 year old earth is not that readily apparent to an average reader. In fact, many Intelligent Design proponents, such as Behe, see no problem with the earth being old.

I think literal interpretation wants to have it both ways – it wants to be “literal and easy to understand” so long as all the many questions such a view presents are explained by all these wacky reasons. Moreover, how do you respond to someone who disagrees with what the simplest and easiest to understand reading of Genesis would be? In fact, Creationists refer to non-obvious reasons all the time to explain why they believe Genesis should be interpreted literally. I’ve heard plenty of people say “yeah, I just think Genesis didn’t mean ‘day’ in a literal sense at all,” to which a Creationist has responded with long explanations of why that is theologically and contextually incorrect.  But if you want to say “literal and that’s it,” then you have to stop there – you can’t give in-depth contextual/historical/logical/etc. reasons for why you believe it should be literal and then dismiss other contextual/historical/logical/etc reasons for why it should be treated metaphorically.

So, I disagree that literal = easy/most straightforward and that easy/most straightforward = correct.

I think the Bible should always be interpreted in context with an understanding of who is writing, why that author is being directed by God to write, what conventions that person uses in writing, to whom that person is writing, the original meaning of the text, etc. Pastors of every single denomination refer to these considerations all the time. That doesn’t mean that the Bible is necessarily always difficult to understand.  I think it presents a beautiful challenge – if you want to go intellectually deeper, it will always present more than you can handle, and if you start to get all “heady” with it, you forget its simple and straightforward directions and probably can’t see the forest for the trees.

So, all that to try and explain that it wasn’t a “recognition that it’s scientifically impossible” for Genesis to occur literally that is my cornerstone. It’s that this doesn’t make sense, and science is continuing to confirm that it doesn’t make sense.  But science has only served to help correct an interpretation that wasn’t sound to begin with (earth-centered universe, flat earth, etc.). And like I said, the miracles that would not be theologically sound to “correct”– like Jesus rising from the dead – were just as impossible then as they are now.

I’m not actually so sure that “real-world” evidence can never help us understand the Bible better either. Say there is conflicting interpretations as to where Jesus was crucified. You are slightly convinced that from your best interpretation that it’s at X location over Y location. But then some new non-biblical text comes along or some archeological find occurs than gives more credence to Y location. Would that affect your belief?  Better yet, you find evidence for X location – would you refer to this evidence in your discussions?  Why are Creationists even so much in need for evidence of Creation and against Evolution?  If Genesis is a literal scientific account of everything concerning the beginning of the universe, then why even need to bolster your argument with evidence?  It is what it is, no need to find evidence because you already know it.  But if you’re arguing the evidence, then the evidence must matter somehow.  My opinion is that metaphor interpretation is not only plausible, but probably the correct interpretation regardless of science, but that science continues to add evidence that this is true.  Just like Creationists proudly display any “scientific evidence” that Creationism is correct, can you deny using scientific evidence that a metaphoric interpretation is correct?

“All of the questions you raised that convince you that the earth cannot be 6,000 to 10,000 years old have been thought of by young-earth creationists, and they remain young-earthers.”

Come on now, I can’t let you get away with that one :0) I guess maybe you were trying to assure me that my concerns weren’t novel. But I know that Answers in Genesis has some sort of response to most any scientific argument. I just think a lot of their responses are pretty poor, but I tried to actually avoid arguing most any scientific evidence for/against evolution because I feel that regardless of the actual evidence, the real driving force behind a belief in Creation is the theological weight of the position, not the evidence.  Even if people feel like the evidence convinces them, it’s the really the deep-seated belief that reading Genesis as literally as possible is “really what the Bible says” and “really really important to believe as a Christian.”  If not, I truly believe people would simply accept evolution for what it is and have no problem with it.  But instead, we’ve set up the conflict (I don’t care how Atheists have used it to set up a conflict too – I’m concerned that we’ve given them a powerful voice by a wrong response).  It’s morphed into a big ol’ conflict between science and religion – and I feel the Devil is using every angle of the conflict to hurt the Church.

I still think any response to problems tries to fit within the idea that death and or pain never occurred before Eve ate the fruit.  I just don’t think they make any sense – not on a scientific level but on a logical level.  Not that it’s not impossible, but that it’s more logical to think otherwise.  It reminds me of hyperfaith Christians who preach that if you’re sick, you have to have sin blocking the way for healing because God wants to heal you right here, right now.  It’s a theologically simple proposition – God wants to always heal, all the time and therefore the only possible thing blocking an immediate healing must be sin in your life that separates you from God.  If we want to say otherwise to match reality (and the scriptures as a whole), we have to say “it’s more complicated than that.”  Maybe sin is the ultimate problem with healing, but it’s not this simple little equation that’s present that sounds nice but doesn’t match reality. We’ve already committed to worshiping a God that on a first and straightforward reading of the Bible does what appears to be a lot of questionable things.  Many people even cite the Old Testament the reason they aren’t Christians.

I think Creationism is another way to try and solve an apparent problem by an incorrect “tidy” explanation and dismiss all of its problems because the answer is so deceptively tidy. The problem is that I don’t believe it matches reality, and contextual evidence and scientific knowledge helps to confirm this. And rather than being an effective Evangelical tool, I think it has mainly served to hurt and set up division. If it satisfies a Christian’s doubt in the existence of God or the idea that God could have used evolution because it involves the death of organisms, then maybe one can argue it has done a lot of good.  But wrong doctrines have provided a lot of comfort to Christians by trying to explain the difficulties of reality in ways that at first appear simple but in the long run present worse problems.

I do believe Genesis is the setup for the entire foundation of Christianity, but that a metaphoric understanding representing our situation and our origins is not an incorrect interpretation.  For  this I’ll borrow from C.S. Lewis:

“For long centuries, God perfected the animal from which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. He gave it hands whose thumb could be applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all of the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated [. . .] Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say “I” and “me,” which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past [. . .] We do not know how many of these creatures God made, nor how long they continued in the Paradisal state. But sooner or later they fell. Someone or something whispered that they could become as gods [. . . ] They wanted some corner in the universe of which they could say to God, “This is our business, not yours.” But there is no such corner. They wanted to be nouns, but they were, and eternally must be, mere adjectives. We have no idea in what particular act, or series of acts, the self-contradictory, impossible wish found expression. For all I can see, it might have concerned the literal eating of a fruit, but the question is of no consequence.”

I think I’ll wait on further reading, as I’m sure you’d like to respond yourself. Thanks for the conversation!

Your (still) favorite (and only) nephew,



Hi Chris,

Not to worry, I am not offended, and I still love and respect you as I always have in the past. That said, it’s too bad that you are terribly wrong.  🙂

Your belief that the ID group’s “teach the controversy” challenge is dirty politics rather than based upon a desire to have “honest discussions” I find to be in serious error to put it mildly.  I have no idea where you would get that belief unless you just want to believe that or you have read some terribly biased critic’s comment on the ID Movement.  So if you would like to provide evidence for such an accusation, I’m all ears.  Though many ID people are theistic evolutionists, I have listened to them and they have conducted themselves admirably as they deal with a potentially explosive issue, especially the spearhead Phillip Johnson out of Berkeley, California.  His opponents get frustrated with him for two reasons: 1) his views, 2) he’s always so friendly!  Doesn’t sound like evil politics to me.

You said that Gapper and Day-Agers try to have it both ways, but so does the theistic evolutionist of whom you say you are.  With your position, there is little debate with “science” or with many Christians who have not looked into this issue.  To me “theistic evolution” is an oxymoron if the theist believes that God wrote the Bible. If one rejects the Gap Theory and the Day-Age Theory, there is nothing else in the Biblical account that would compel one to your position.  Therefore, I must assume that your position is based on the BELIEF that evolution occurred in spite of its scientific problems. But then where can you “find” millions of years in history in the Bible. A mere theist can believe anything about God he wants because he has no standard text written by God.  But the Bible-believing Christian has the greater challenge because the Bible IS THE STANDARD.

You said that “Genesis is a type of story that illustrates the truth of God….”  My earlier point (possibly ignored by you) was that Jesus Christ quoted Genesis as literal truth.  He gave us no indication that it was just a story or a metaphor.  In addition,  I cannot think of ONE REASON why God would do this.  Can you give me a good reason WHY God would make up stories rather than literal truth without telling us it is a parable?  We are not talking about a brief phrase like “the four corners of the earth” (which does not necessarily imply a flat earth by the way – Isaiah describes “the circuit of the earth” also – to my knowledge there is no evidence that Bible believers asserted publicly that the earth was flat).  We are talking about lengthy descriptive accounts that Jesus said happened.  Can you comprehend the trouble and the thin ice you are skating upon here?

I agree with the importance of context when interpreting the Bible.  Please explain to me is how the context within the Book of Genesis leads to your interpretations?  For example, the context of the word “day” during the creation was always attached to the context of the occurrence of “morning and evening” and they equaled “one day.”  The Hebrew word “yom” means 24-hour day, especially when linked to “morning and evening.”  The same Hebrew word is used in the Ten Commandment mention of “six days” regarding creation.  This is not deep intellectual stuff, seems plain to me.  So what context are you using here?

For the record, however, the Bible does not condone our concept of slavery.  In Biblical times, “slaves” or man-servants worked to pay off debt. They were freed when debt was paid. It was not based on race and did not condone mistreatment, at least from the Biblical perspective.  Now humans can get a hold of anything and pervert it.

I did not mean to say that “literal = easy/most straightforward  +  easy/most straightforward = correct” ALL THE TIME, IN EVERY INSTANCE.  Sorry I mislead led on this.  And God does raise up people of intelligence to help us understand the Bible.  But when intelligence is placed OVER THE SPIRIT OF GOD, then we’ve got a debate!

An example, reading Isaiah 7:14 about “a young maiden shall conceive a child.”  The Hebrew word literally means “young maiden” not necessarily “virgin.”  It could mean that, but it mostly means “young maiden.”  Matthew, however, claims the word “virgin” when he identifies the passage as a messianic prophecy.  Now, who are we to believe?  The intellectual who will make an extremely good case for the “young maiden” interpretation, or Matthew, who takes the passage out of the ancient Jewish context and declares that it refers to Jesus’ virgin birth.  I’ll go with the Spirit on this one.  Critics will accuse Matthew of making his religious beliefs more powerfully appealing to the masses. Will your type thinking eventually lead to this kind of deception?  It ain’t there now, but what about 10 years down the road?  In the end, I think we all end up believing what we want to believe.  Jesus did say that we will be able to tell man-made doctrine from doctrine (teaching) from God if we want to obey the Father (John 7:17).  You see, it may not come down to simply “scientific evidence.”  Evidence ALWAYS HAS assumptions and interpretations attached.  There is no such thing among the human race as a totally open-minded person, especially in scientific circles today.

Another example of this point is when you said, “A belief in creation is the theological weight of the position, not the evidence.”  But evolutionists do the same.  All the major early proponents of evolution either rejected the Bible or even hated Christianity – Darwin, James Hutton, Charles Lyell, and Huxley.  These are the types of men that got the “fantasy ball” rolling.  Their ideology drove them to change interpretation of things such as rock strata history and the age of the earth.  Most were not even scientists.  Of the above mentioned, only Darwin did not have inner hostility toward the Faith, the rest of them did.  So I still maintain that the real debate is NOT science vs. religion.  If it was, religion loses every time because the implication is always science = facts and religion = blind (and often times ignorant) faith.  Who can win a debate with those definitions?  Bottom line is that very intelligent people believe firmly in both positions, and I dare say, that they are much more informed on this issue than you and I combined.  The point being, it’s not just about facts or intellectual reasoning, and, I dare say, that this is what seems to be moving you to your conclusions.  Forgive me if I am wrong.

You keep stating that death occurred before sin. Now, do you mean human death, or just animal death?  You also bring in the “pain” question linked to this one, but I’m trying to get clear understanding about one thing at a time.

You also said, “Creationism is another way to try and solve an apparent problem by an incorrect ‘tidy’ explanation and dismiss all of its problems….”   This statement is so unfair and wrong, and shows your lack of reading what ICR researchers have been accomplishing lately and the tough questions they throw at themselves.  In fact, I say that evolutionists do this very thing with polystrate fossils, lack of true transitional fossils, all the frauds and hoaxes over the years of junk science promoted to support this dumb idea (I can’t even honor it by calling it a theory).  Everything from Urey Miller to Ernst Hackel to the Piltdown Man fiasco.  I’m amazed that you accuse the Creationist group of doing this while the evolution side suppresses evidence and critical thinking galore.  Textbook quote:  “How long do you think humans have been evolving?”  Oh that really promotes critical thinking skills in our young children. What facts have creationists used that so insult you?  They’ve been honest about the moon dust not being a good example for a young earth, the Puluxy River bed in Texas is not used by reputable creationists anymore, and there are other interpretations that they have admitted do not hold water anymore.  So I strongly oppose your tainted view of creationist researchers dismissing (not facing) and inventing “tidy” explanations that do not hold water when further explored.  Haven’t all scientists done this to some extent over our history.  Among all, I have found the creation researchers pretty much above board on how they conduct themselves.  The creationist researcher has more integrity than the evolutionist.  Nobody’s perfect, but I see more fairness on the Bible side.  This holds for the debates that I have been to as well…but, hey, I’m biased (but I admit it, unlike you know who).

I do agree that these issues can divide the church, so I am careful to love and respect other believers who do not share my views.  While creationist that I read about have firm convictions about what the Bible says and does not say, I do not see them as self-righteous pushers who insist that all their views are necessary for salvation.  They do, however, see a compromising Christian position that they feel weakens the church, but mostly weakens the authority of the Bible being God’s Word – this is their biggest concern.  Does this cloud their scientific method?  Critics and skeptics will be quick to think so.  But I see integrity in them.  Creationists may have a good point about people not giving the Bible its due.  I have not been too impressed with the church in America.  Other nations where lives are threatened because of Jesus, these I have been impressed with.  In these places, this debate doesn’t even exist.  But why would it? – there is no compromising there…  🙂

Regarding your closure (nice try, by the way)…it just indicates that even Lewis was evolutionized, and even great writers that promote Christianity can be dead wrong.

Your Uncle and Brother in Christ Always,



Dear Uncle Dave,

The “teach the controversy” I think is dishonest because I don’t think it has anything to do with a real desire for good science and all  to do with wanting Creationism to have scientific credibility.  Christians aren’t concerned with whether the scientific method is being properly taught with respect to any other issue except that one for one reason only – it buts heads with Creationism.  They don’t care about the unexplained aspects of gravitational theory, string theory, chemical theories, etc. But since you can’t teach Creationism in a classroom (i.e. read Genesis as a scientific text), this is the way to slide in some scientific credibility under the “guise” that you just want the faults of evolution to be taught.  It’s not that Creationists are even considering that they’re doing a dishonest thing – I just feel it’s not quite forthcoming even if they don’t realize it.

I believe that Genesis is allegory and then I get millions of years from science.  Yes, I’m not saying that the Bible says it’s millions of years old.  I just don’t think the Bible says much at all about our origins from a super literal viewpoint.  I think science is explaining the processes that occurred in a natural sense.

Jesus’s reference to Adam can just as easily be seen as symbolic in my mind.  I don’t think that’s any sort of slippery slope.  I think it makes sense.  A catholic would say you are butchering the words of Jesus by not believing in transubstantiation. I know you would consider that completely different, but the point is that they wouldn’t.  While you explain that it is a symbol, they think you are denying some sacred.

I still think it comes down to two things – evolution is seen as a threat to 1) the existence of God and 2) the character of God (that he would use something like evolution.  Trustworthiness of God’s word I still think boils down to those two concerns because the Bible could still easily be considered trustworthy and simply metaphoric at parts.  I think we could argue about contextual clues (I like http://biologos.org/) and how we could read Genesis all day and you wouldn’t change your mind because those two beliefs are so deep-seated.  And I only changed my mind because I changed my view on those.  By tidy I didn’t mean to say that Creationists ignore tough questions at all.  In fact, I think they recognize a lot of them (and, in my opinion, answer some of them pretty poorly or simply say “I don’t know but it has to be that way” but nevertheless recognize and address them).  I meant tidy in that the theology that the type of biological death that would have had to occur in animals during evolution could not have occurred before a literal Eve ate a literal fruit is “neat.”  I just think this idea is wrong.  I think Genesis is a metaphor that I don’t fully understand yet but hope to understand more and more of in the future.  It tells us about our beginnings, about the human situation/condition, about God’s desired relationship with us and what prevents it.  I know there is lots and lots of theology that hinges on the literalness of the story, but I just think this is misguided.  And one sort of misconception that seems prevelent (not saying you think this at all – but I do think a lot of Creationists do) is that no one thought Genesis was metaphoric before Evolution and that we’re only now trying to develop all these off-base theories to fit into this man-made interpretation.  That’s simply not the case – many great theologians back to the early Christians approached Genesis from a metaphoric standpoint.  Like I said, I don’t think the Bible explains evolution or the old age of the earth, I just think those conclusions make sense with a metaphoric interpretation and maybe even add evidence to the conclusion that that is the correct interpretation, just as if we were to find some archeological evidence that puts more weight into one interpretation of a Biblical story than another interpretation.

Obviously, I do agree that intellectual reasoning does not necessarily make something true.  The Spirit reveals truth above all else.  Except that I think God has brought me to this conclusion…I really do.  I feel right about it, and think it makes more sense.  But arguing who’s “spirit” is correct wouldn’t really lead much into a good discussion, haha, would it?

Ultimately, I don’t think it’s ever intellectual reasoning that makes someone fall astray.  I would think it would usually be pride or some other trap under the guise of intelligence.  For me, in this case, I don’t believe it’s the case.  If I’m wrong, then I’m simply mistaken, but I think I’m at least have a better ability to say this because I was in the Creationist camp.  It’s not like I’ve looked down on “those Creationists” from a heady viewpoint for my whole life.  I feel like I’ve come out of the camp and want to go back into it to talk with them with an understanding of where they’re coming from.  Sadly, I don’t think many Evolutionists have a good idea of where Creationists are really coming from.  They simply think they are stupid, which is sad.

And I guess we’ll be all clear once we reach the pearly gates :0) I’ll bet you two bricks of gold I’m right, haha.


Hi Chris,

I do not share your evaluation of the scientists from ID.  Although most are old-earth creationists, I think they try to think and act and conclude with integrity. They are not trying to “disguise” anything. That has been a consistent claim by their opponents, which I believe have been prejudiced and unfair toward the ID people.  Have you researched the evolutionists’ discrimination against scientists of faith lately?   They are using unethical means to rid the scientific community of scientists of faith.  As you know, ID is not trying to prove the existence of God.  They simply have created a criterion that indicates the fingerprint of an intelligent designer,not even a supernatural one necessarily.  No one can scientifically prove God, and God wants it that way.  All interpretations of evidence should be afforded time in the classroom, however.  The evolutionists oppose this freedom and scientific integrity.  One can use Genesis as a source without trying to promote Christianity or Judaism, or even theism.  I am at least in favor of schools presenting evidence against evolution while leaving the Bible out of the curriculum.  But our society isn’t anywhere near this fairness.

Your example of transubstantiation is flawed.  Applying what you have stated earlier, to which I totally agree, you must interpret using the entire Bible as a context.  For example, the apostles never ate Jesus’ literal flesh nor did they say it must be done after His resurrection.  They never spoke of transubstantiation after the Last Supper.  It was clearly added centuries later by a false church.   Your “license” to apply your figurative interpretations seems to be a convenience to your bias rather than based upon the context of the entire Bible.  Furthermore, contrary to what you’ve stated more than once, this broad, inconsistent with Scripture license does begin the proverbial slippery slope toward anything that is not natural in the Bible.  Because if you apply this criterion that you have set up in your mind, I don’t see how you can draw a “cease and desist” line.

If God gave us a difficult to understand metaphors about our beginnings and meaning to our existence, I would resent Him.  You still have not given me one good reason why God would do this to us.  It does not seem fair that a loving God would do this.  Please comment.

You made an excellent point about intellectual reasoning alone does not necessarily cause error, but it’s pride, or, I would add, rebellion.  I am glad you recognize the the Spirit reveals truth above all else (so you agree with Matthew’s “virgin birth” interpretation I assume).

You also said, however, “If I’m wrong then I’m simply mistaken…”  Not if you influence others to misinterpret the Bible.  And the same goes for me, there’s always more at stake than you realize when it comes to “rightly dividing the Truth (2Timothy 2:15).  Furthermore, when we read Scripture, we should not enter with our ideas, but rather ask the Holy Spirit to reveal truth to us as we read.  That constant and consistent dependence on the Holy Spirit to guide is essential.  A close spiritual walk with Jesus and a passion for Him and His Kingdom must also be overriding factors in understanding His Word, and it is this Spirit that this world cannot receive – and evolution is totally enmeshed with this world [John14:17 and 26].

Your Uncle & Brother always,

Uncle Dave


Dear Chris,

The following description comes from Henry Morris (the loving, humble, father of Biblical Creationism):

One who seeks to be literal would try to uphold the primary meaning of a word or words. A literalist would avoid exaggeration, metaphor, or embellishment of those words, and would attempt to find the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning.

A literalist would not hold that:
* Every word has only one meaning.
* Every passage can only be taken as presenting hard facts.
* Every sentence must be taken as redemptive truth.
* There are no passages with allegorical or figurative meanings.

A literalist would hold that:
* Every word of God is pure.
* We are not to "add" to or "delete" anything from the text.
* We are to revere and respect the text.
* We are to study and obey the text.
* We are to embrace the text's historicity, authenticity, accuracy, and authority.

Such a position would mean that a literalist would accept the words of Genesis as historically accurate. That would mean that God created a “good” universe, and that the creation of the universe is recent. That would also mean that “progressive” and/or “evolutionary” creation is not taught by the words of Scripture.

A creationist worldview, which is certainly based on a “literalist” approach to the text of Scripture, would reject any form of naturalistic, atheistic, or evolutionary interpretation of the biblical record. That rejection is required because such an atheistic interpretation would exclude the supernatural involvement of God. Also, such an evolutionary approach to the biblical text would refute or distort the character of God as revealed in the creation. Furthermore, naturalistic interpretation of the text would nullify the clear words of God’s inspired writings.

Interpretation of the biblical text is foundational to an understanding of God’s Word. A non-literal approach to the text ultimately means that man “decides” what God meant when God inspired the writings. When man makes the decision, science is often laid over Scripture, or reason over revelation. Experience rules over biblical doctrine in many hearts, thus relegating the Scripture to a subservient position.

When one approaches the Scripture as a literalist, God’s Word determines what man is to believe. Scripture then rules over man’s atheistic science and revelation rules over man’s “natural” mind–including ruling over man’s feelings or experience. Here at ICR we hold to such a “naïve literalist” position, expecting that our search for scientific information will demonstrate the accuracy of the biblical text.

I know this screams of bias!  But let’s examine the real world of science.  IF every word of the Bible comes from God, this seems to be a safer approach considering the facts of the history of man’s thoughts and reasonings.  This does not mean we give up on or ignore good scientific research and inquiry, to the contrary, we make darn sure that it is the best we can do, leaving open all possible options of interpretation save that which directly contradicts what God has said.  This last part bothers evolutionist scientists despite them approaching research and discovery in the same way.  For example, the Bible says that the earth was created before the sun.  No room for an interpretation to assert the opposite.  So the creationist will look for evidence to support what they believe which contradicts good science.   But evolutionists believe that the sun came into existence before the earth, so their research will be based on that assumption and will seek evidence to support their belief.  Therefore, the bottom line is that ALL scientists, creationist or evolutionists, start off with an assumption of belief to some degree.  When evolutionist Dr. Mary Schweitzer kept looking at soft tissue (red blood cells, I think) from a T-Rex bone, she repeatedly said she could not believe what she was seeing because the T-Rex has been dead for 70 million years. Therefore what she was seeing would be impossible. She and her cohorts continue to try to come up with explanations that fit the evolution model.  Similarly, when a young-earth creationist scientist such as Russell Humphreys looks at the speed of light, he assumes that it is not constant, then investigates how he can prove that. Both positions start with a bias. IF THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD, WHICH POSITION IS IN A BETTER POSITION TO FIND TRUTH?

Uncle Dave


Hi Chris,

The attached article caught my attention only because of you saying that you have “joined” the theistic evolutionists with the plan of bringing their ideas to the church and to the Young-Earth Creationists’ platform.  After reading the article, you may wish to re-evaluate your “mission.”  You may be treading on scary turf.  The secularists are now looking and promoting theistic evolutionists (you) to BE THEIR SPOKESMEN because they themselves know they cannot deter the Bible-believing Christian.

Uncle Dave

PS  After asking twice, I still have not received a response from you about WHY God would speak in “metaphors” about our history and not speak plainly.  Nor have I received a response from you concerning the way in which Jesus spoke about Adam and Even and Genesis events as being literal history with no hint of metaphor use by Him (He did write Genesis, you know).


Dear Uncle Dave,

Well, I’m afraid to not give a good enough answer as to why God did what it appears that He did. But what’s wrong with figurative language describing our situation instead of a scientific manual or historical documentation in the way we may describe it today?

God described us, our situation, our meaning in figurative terms. And I think there is a lot to gain from that.  The very gospel is explained in parables and figurative language. Why is the most important thing in the Bible described in figurative language? Because it’s spiritual and we can only understand spiritual things in metaphoric terms? I think there are times when figurative language can be used to convey meaning better than trying to describe something literally, especially when the literal wouldn’t make much sense to the audience (e.g. the book of Job – tons of figurative language describing “real” things).

And if God wanted to make it literal, why not explain away all the obvious problems with it being literal? In fact, isn’t it weird that God would make the world look old and that evolution took place? All this evidence for an old earth and evolution is not being created out of thin air by atheists. There is good science for it – way better “unbiased science” than creationist science. Why would God leave it so much more reasonable based on evidence to believe it’s an old earth and not give a more detailed scientific account of a literal creation?  If anything, I would resent a God that created a world in which evolution took place without explaining why on earth He would do that?

In fact, I think looking at it too “literally” gets Christians merely debating about the literalness of it instead of focusing on what it indisputable says. If we didn’t, we could all agree that God is the author of life, God desires a perfect world, Sin in the world and in ourselves is the heart of the problem and reason why the world is full of pain and suffering, sin is a rebellion against what God directs us to do, Sin of previous generations impacts future generations, Satan is the tempter out to destroy us, etc.

Clearly at some point in evolution, God decided to bestow on what was an animal the image of God.  Do I think he literally made them out of the dust of the earth in a literal second? No. Figuratively? Yes. And even the creation of a woman can have figurative meaning.  Even the tree of life…literal tree? Well, maybe, but isn’t it much more important that it is an illustration of disobedience and the consequences?  Even the term “image of God” is figurative, isn’t it?  You don’t believe the God looks like a literal human, right?  It’s clearly referring to a deeper level of meaning than simply “God has one head, two arms, and two legs.”

Jesus referring to Adam could easily be figurative to my mind as well.

It’s hard for me to pin down exactly what literally transpired with the first human/s…maybe something along the lines of the “historical view” briefly explained here.

As to the science, as I said earlier, I think historical, contextual, and scientific evidence all support a figurative view.  Clearly, evidence must matter somewhat, as Creationists don’t just stop at “it’s definitely in the Bible, that’s it” but attempt to put forward a complex factual explanation for nearly everything. Except that I think reality is continually showing that a literal interpretation is simply wrong.  And what I’m most worried about is this idea that Christians put their faith in God because of this idea that intelligent design or evidence of a young earth disputes evolution. I think an honest look at the situation recognizes that the evidence clearly favors evolution took place, and if you hang so much of your faith on this literalist interpretation, I think you’re on very shaky ground. And I think it’s leading to a false dilemma between science and faith, which I think you would agree, except that you believe evolution is causing this split. Let the atheists use evolution! I don’t think it’s causing this mass exodus from Christianity. I actually think the Creationist movement is doing much to blow up the issue.  I don’t think it’s about compromising a position, I think this is sort of argument is what the devil intends. We’re creating the idea that “science” can’t be trusted.  Science classrooms were never a place where religion was being destroyed or the idea that Jesus rose from the dead disputed.  Faith and the miracles of the Bible were always “miraculous” – you didn’t need to explain in Biology class that once a person is dead he is always dead or that you can’t get pregnant without having sex. You don’t see churches up in arms because health classes don’t teach that “it’s possible if God is involved for a woman who never had sex to conceive” or that biology teachers don’t explain that “it is possible if you are blind that under special circumstances you can rub dirt in your eyes and be better.”  And that’s exactly why many scientists don’t like the Creationist position. The average Christian is not concerned that the scientific method is being taught improperly – because it’s not about the scientific method – in fact it’s the exact opposite – it’s trying to conform the evidence into a specific predetermined interpretation that corresponds to a literal reading of the book of Genesis. As much as Creationists argue that Evolutionists do the same thing by trying to fit the data into evolutionary theory – it’s not the same.

But maybe this sort of conversation makes you feel that Creationism is more important to promote than ever.  Haha, which is probably the case.



I’ve read your BioLogos article and I can see where you are getting your ideas. I’ll be honest, I do not agree with BioLogos and have strong beliefs that they are wrong.  If I can reduce my response, here’s where I think they have strayed, when they say:

“The difficulty with this understanding of Paul, however, is that it is difficult to reconcile with the scientific data, which has lead Christian thinkers to consider different ways of handling Paul’s words.”

They’ve made the classic mistake 1 Timothy 6:20-21 warns us about. When BioLogos states “scientific data,” it implies that it is 100% solid fact.  The FACT is that they constantly use phrases such as “seems to be, appears, or implicates.” These are not scientific (factual) statements. They are guesses derived from evidence. BioLogos is guilty of holding man’s fallible ideas to a higher standard than the Bible.

They’re view of “Cain’s wife problem” demonstrated shallow thinking. His wife did not HAVE to be his sister. The aging process was different before The Flood.  Men could have married women much “younger” than themselves. So his wife could have been a 3rd niece for all we know. And populations can increase rather quickly under favorable conditions. It is safe to assume that there were not many plagues or wars wiping people out back at that time in history. These thoughts are not far-fetched as you have accused the creationists of promoting.

You say, “clearly evidence must matter somewhat [to the creationist].” Of course! But the dispute is the “interpretation of evidence.” Evolutionists constantly mesh interpretation with fact. This is not scientific.

You also presume that today’s science knows much. That is not true. If we truly knew all science, I guarantee that a literal view of Genesis would make total sense. The recent discovery of “the hobbit fossil” sent evolutionists “scurrying! They said it will drastically change their view of evolution!  Even to the point where they think that humans may NOT have evolved from Africa! Wow! One little partial fossil rocked their boat that much?! I’d say their “house” must be built on sinking sand.

You say that evidence points to an old earth. I don’t think so, and there are many scientific problems raised against this belief. Furthermore, it is the evolutionists who start concocting far-fetched explanations in light of the facts – not the creationists.  For example, comets over time lose their tails.  Since they still  have tails, they cannot be millions of years old. So the evolutionists make up the “Oort Cloud” and say new comets are produced and flung into our solar system. Well, that’s real convenient, especially considering that no human has even seen this place. What you have accuse the creationists of doing, the evolutionists have done more.

I also disagree that “science” has not caused people to leave their faith. False science (man’s theories) has. Furthermore, it prevents people from even reading the Bible because it has been “proven false” by science.  It is the biggest single factor in preventing people from entering the Kingdom (other than, of course, the love of darkness according to the Word). But that is what the “love of darkness” gravitates toward for an excuse not to follow the Truth.

If evolution occurred, then you have a problem with 1 Corinthians 15: 39: “All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.”  According to this passage, the “kinds” that God created are NOT related physically as evolution asserts.  My point is, that theistic evolutionists think they can mess with Genesis only, yet in reality, there is a dangerous domino effect that permeates God’s Word.

Does it not concern you that the two men who founded the “old-earth concept” (James Hutton and Charles Lyell) hated the Bible? Doesn’t it bother you that Eugenie Scott, head of the National Center for Science Education, mocks Christianity and wants to use you to espouse her beliefs? She does not mock because of young-earth beliefs only. She mocks the notion of God’s existence.

You said, “And if God wanted to make it literal, why not explain away all the obvious problems with it being literal?” ALL the problems? Well, where could He stop explaining if He did this. As our scientific knowledge increases, God would need to explain more. If God explained everything in true (His) scientific terms, then generations could not understand it and would therefore reject the Bible. If He did explain EVERYTHING BASED ON ALL KNOWLEDGE, would the explanation ever end? Would this generation be able to comprehend it?  I don’t think so. There is more that we do not know than what we know (safe assumption). Let us not be so presumptuous with our so-called knowledge. Certainly people living before the “knowledge explosion” occurred would not understand it. Isn’t this part of God’s message to Job who also treated God with presumption?  And even only some of God’s explanations to Job we now can understand in scientific terms but he could not explain anything in his day.

I am surprised to hear you say, “All this evidence for an old earth and evolution is not being created out of thin air by atheists. There is good science for it – way better “unbiased science” than creationist science.”  All their evidence has been challenged. Furthermore, what’s wrong with the RATE (Radio Isotopes and the Age of the Earth) Group’s science? They published their finding November 5, 2005. I have the abstract.  They applied all the rules of the scientific method and found that organic samples in various depths of the earth’s crust all contained similar amounts of C-14.  If evolutionary history is true, the upper level samples should have contained a little C-14, while the lower samples less and less, finally having no traceable amounts. Their findings indicate that all these life forms could not have died millions of years ago, but rather only thousands and at the same time. Nice evidence for Noah’s Flood I’d say. It blows the geologic column out the window. So if you have a fair critique of their methods, I’d like to read it.

Chris, forgive me if my assumption on this next piece is wrong. I invite you to spend more time reading the Bible than man’s ideas about it. Reading man’s ideas is fine, but if you spend more time reading man’s ideas and less time reading God’s Word….well….  And when I say read God’s Word, I mean with an honest open mind that asks Him to anoint you with HIS INSIGHTS, not man’s or your own way of thinking. Are you willing to do this?

In Him,

Uncle Dave


Well, we’ve probably reached a crossroads – explained our thoughts about as much as we can. As I said, I’m convinced that it was actually “man’s ideas” that taught me Creationism. I never arrived at Creationism from a blank slate or unbiased look at God’s Word. I was taught since I was a little kid. I studied those Kent Hovind videos. I read Answers in Genesis stuff all the time. I attended a Michael Behe lecture. I debated with my high school science teachers. I was fully and completely persuaded, so I actually feel like this change has been God’s change in me – working though the wisdom presented by others. I don’t think BioLogos or other Theistic Evolutionary sources have it completely figured out, but I just think it’s heading in the right direction. Sure, atheists will want to use that…but again, I think the threat it drummed to actually be more of a church divider than uniter. As weird as it sounds, I think atheists actually want Creationism to stick around. I think if someone is sold on Theistic Evolution, there is nowhere to go for them. The person doesn’t really care so much about evolution. The atheist can’t use it to hurt them much. Yes, they might say they hate Creationists…but do they really? Scientists who have an atheistic agenda (which I think is less than Creationists suggest is the case – I mean a clear “I want to disprove the existence of God” agenda) should relish the spread of Creationism among church going members who don’t have a good understanding of the science. While the church is struggling to “teach science” to its members, the atheists are lying in wait waiting to present better, more reasoned arguments than the average church person.  And we just keep bringing the fight to them. They hate them in one sense in that they are Christians, but love them in other sense because it gives them their “perfect example” talking point about religion not being reasonable.

But I guess we disagree that “false science” has caused people to disagree. I’d say way more people don’t believe for other reasons – bad religious experiences, not understanding how a loving God would allow suffering, being too busy to care, no emotional connection, and the love of the world like you said. I know there are people out there that say evolution is this great stumbling block to belief…but I don’t even think you’re going to save those people by giving evidence for Creationism – it’s probably really a different stumbling block, not some scientific theory. They’re going to eventually have to accept the miraculous, one way or another.

Why is it so frequently couched in such extreme terms? You could take any interpretation of a passage of scripture and amp it up to be so important that even questioning that interpretation leads someone to ask if you’re still being guided by the Holy Spirit…but is that necessary for this? I just don’t think that goes anywhere but frustration. That seems to be a question you tell someone who is wondering and searching for answers or is asking how to interpret the Bible. To ask, which both you and Tim immediately did, if I was being led by the Spirit is kind of weird, isn’t it? Clearly I think I am and clearly I know that I shouldn’t take man’s word over God’s…I wouldn’t mention this stuff if I didn’t believe that. But if also admitting that it’s confusing or that “maybe I’m wrong” is an indication that I’m not being guided by the Holy Spirit, then I’ll have to avoid such qualifications :0)  Maybe rightly so, I don’t know


Hey Chris,

Most points aside, I guess I am still surprised that you think evolution has happened. You’re talking “goo-to-you,” not adaptations within species which both sides agree on. It’s amazing to me that very intelligent people can say on one side, “There is ample evidence for evolution” while other equally intelligent people say, “There is no evidence for evolution and lots of evidence against it.”

I’m still curious as to your interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:39.

Uncle Dave


Dear Uncle Dave,

Hey, I’m not sure that’s what that passage means…that we’re not physically derived from one creature at some point in the past. I would think that means that just as there is all sorts of different types of creatures today, there are different kinds of spiritual bodies. I mean, we ARE all made up of carbon atoms, right? If you went literally, it would seem to suggest that fish and monkeys are composed of entirely different matter…yet…they are both carbon atoms. If all flesh is not the same flesh…literally…then why are living organisms made out of basically the same material? I would think the “problem area” of 1 Cor. 15 is the mention of “Adam,” not this section, but I haven’t thought about it much…



Dear Chris,

“Not the same flesh” strongly implies no relationship. If he were saying simply there are a variety of life forms, I would bet he would use a different phrase. But we will never KNOW until we get to Heaven.

Uncle Dave


Dear Uncle Dave,

I really do wonder what it will be like…that scripture where Jesus answers those people that were trying to trick him about “who will the guy who married a bunch of girls be married to in heaven?” always confuses me…because, while I know they were asking for the wrong reasons, it does seem like a good question. I mean…really, who would that be married to? Would he even remember his formal life? Would it somehow he remember but it just not matter? Anyway, probably way over my head…



Dear Chris,

There are many more problems with your trust in man’s theory of evolution. If the Genesis is figurative, and if evolution really occurred, then according to what Genesis says, it is worse than “figurative,” it is WRONG:

Consider these examples of contradictions of order:

Evolution                                                                                                      Genesis

Sun before earth                                    Earth before sun
Dry land before sea                               Sea before dry land
Atmosphere before sea                        Sea before atmosphere
Sun before light on earth                      Light on earth before sun
Stars before earth                                   Earth before stars
Earth at same time as planets               Earth before other planets
Sea creatures before land plants         Land plants before sea creatures
Earthworms before starfish                  Starfish before earthworms
Land animals before trees                    Trees before land animals
Death before man                                   Man before death
Thorns and thistles before man            Man before thorns and thistles
TB pathogens & cancer before man (dinos had TB & cancer) Man before TB pathogens and cancer
Reptiles before birds                               Birds before reptiles
Land mammals before whales                Whales before land animals
Simple plants before fruit trees              Fruit trees before other plants*
Insects before mammals                          Mammals (cattle) before “creeping things”*
Land mammals before bats                      Bats before land animals
Dinosaurs before birds                             Birds before dinosaurs
Insects before flowering plants               Flowering plants before insects
Sun before plants                                      Plants before sun
Dinosaurs before dolphins                      Dolphins before dinosaurs
Land reptiles before pterosaurs       Pterosaurs before land reptiles
Land insects before flying insects          Flying insects before land insects

* The order mentioned in Scripture suggests a slight difference in the timing of their appearance; i.e., they were created on the same day, possibly moments or hours apart.

In Christ,

Uncle Dave


Dear Uncle Dave,

Haha, it’s “man’s” theory of gravity, atoms, quantum physics, tectonic plates, etc. too. I’m not saying that the Bible demands evolution to be true any more than it demands quantum physics to be true.

But all those contradictions are just contradictions with a literal interpretation, not metaphoric. I don’t think Genesis is necessarily “metaphorically describing evolution.” That doesn’t necessarily make sense. I don’t think it is trying to say that all literally happened exactly like that – it doesn’t even make much sense for that to matter…who cares if the dry land came before the sea? Unless it has some sort of metaphoric meaning, which I would suggest is much more meaningful than whether it literally happened that way.

But do you really interpret everything literally?

Do you think he literally made light before anything that produces light? Does that make sense literally? So he just redefined physics after he created light?

Do you believe the land literally “produced” vegetation?  It couldn’t have “produced it” in the normal, natural literal fashion because this would have taken more than a day (and likely required the help of animals, and, of course, the sun) – so that must be a figurative explanation of God either creating all the vegetation as is or speeding up the normal process and doing it without the help of animals and the sun.  And how did the plants produce after their own kind in one day before the sun?  Any way He did it – day HAS to be literal but “producing” has to be a figurative description?

Do you believe God created lights in the sky? Or billions and billions of miles away in the universe?  Because it literally says sky, which would seem to literally mean in the atmosphere that we all describe as sky. Plus, God made the birds fly in the “sky,” not space. So “sky” in verse 14 must be figurative although it is literal in verses 8 and 20?

And again, really nothing literally died before man? Not an ant? Not a fly? Not one spider killed one mosquito? Not an micro-organism? Not one venus fly trap killed one insect? What happened when a elephant stepped on a beetle? What happened if an ape slipped and hit his head on a rock? Did that ape feel a sensation of pain? Suffer a concussion? Did cheetahs chase after wild apples and hook them with their claws that are designed for catching and dragging? Why did the bombardier beetle need to shoot harmful chemical spray? What fruit did sharks, hawks, and tigers eat? I still don’t see how you can explain away all the millions of predator prey devices – some that Creationists even use to prove an intelligent design (why would God be praised for making such a defense mechanism if there is no use for it in a world where nothing dies?).  Doesn’t the idea of putting thorns on roses seem figurative? Well, it obviously is – you’re just taking it to be figurative in way that fits your interpretation – it’s figuratively somehow describing this change in the world. Why can’t it figuratively be describing something a little less literal, or maybe even spiritual?

Do you think he literally separated light from darkness? Darkness is just the absence of light, so there’s no literal separating that needs to transpire. According to a literal translation, shouldn’t darkness be a substance that God literally separated from a different substance called light? If we didn’t know that darkness wasn’t a substance, wouldn’t that be the literal interpretation? Why should we think differently now?

Do you think Genesis is “wrong” because science has eventually shown that the moon is not actually a literal “light”?  It says that God literally created two lights – but the moon simply reflects the light from the sun…so why don’t you believe the moon is a literal light? Why would you be willing to interpret that section figuratively (meaning a “figurative” light because it’s reflecting light so it looks like light even though it’s not literally light)? If you have absolutely no evidence that the moon did not itself produce a “lesser” light than the sun, wouldn’t a literal interpretation demand that the moon itself produces and is in fact light? Heck, it’s almost weird to say the sun is a “light” because we now know that the sun merely produces light – it’s not actually light. So we’ve even made a figurative leap there.

Are none of those examples above treated in a figurative manner?

It’s not wrong if it’s figurative. Of course if it’s figurative then it won’t be 100% literal. So if you define “true” by 100% literally, then yes, you’ve defined yourself to victory.

I think everything truly boils down to the problem of having things die during the process of evolution, and you feel like the physical death of any living organism before Eve sinned is theologically impossible. If not for that, I think Genesis would EASILY be understood as a metaphoric story of our origins, our relationship with God, temptation, the problem of sin, etc. But because of that belief, you are willing to take any sort of explanation for all the other problems. Now, because you and many Creationists are very intelligent people, you have developed very elaborate arguments that address everything else, and also developed many other reasons why it is theologically necessary to believe in a literal Genesis, because you know God desires us to be wise and cultivate our understanding. All of that in the attempt to interpret a world pre-fruit-eating that didn’t involve a single thing dying. I don’t think that makes sense – I don’t think that’s mandated by the scriptures, by logic, or by the evidence. I don’t have all the answers for what it all means, I’m just saying that I don’t think it’s that “neat” – it might be nice to have a neat answer, but it doesn’t make sense.

So for my mind, despite any problems of the metaphoric approach, trying to force a strained interpretation of Genesis does more damage to my faith than good. To me, Creationism doesn’t feel like accepting the possibility of a miracle, it feels like it’s try to force a square peg into a round hole while saying that I’m just not seeing how clearly it’s a round peg. I just think Creationists just really really want it to be a round peg – not because of the necessity of scripture – but because of this desire to have a neat explanation. And because we’re constantly getting this notion that we’re “compromising” if we consider anything different so we feel like it’s necessary.

Your literal nephew and metaphoric brother :0)



Dear Chris,

You are too locked in to what your current understandings are about science and you are putting those understandings, which will be changed over years, above what the Scripture simply states. When you say, “Do you think he [sic] literally separated light from darkness? Darkness is just the absence of light, so there’s no literal separating that needs to transpire,” your conclusion is a product of current understanding which is not complete. Scientists really do not know everything about what light or darkness is. They know some things, but not all. For years they assumed that the speed of light and time were constant, they now know better. When you say, “who cares if the dry land came before the sea?” it reflects a lack of respect of what has been recorded in the Sacred Scriptures. While we may not totally comprehend every jot and tittle, I believe that God does not waste His Words to us.

When a source such as Genesis lists so many specific things, it’s difficult for me to imagine figurative language.  If the sun was made before the earth, then why would God tell us the opposite? That makes no sense. Again, what would be God’s purpose in doing this?

Our main problem is not how to interpret Genesis, our main problem is that you think that evolution is true. I do not see transitional forms in the fossil record.  I know that evolutionists see them, but they define them as “having similar structures.” The problem with that loose and defective definition is that true transitional forms would display half fin and half leg or half scale and half feathers, or have leg and half wing due to the evolutionist’s belief that species changed slowly over time. Furthermore, if species were formed in true transition, wouldn’t that render them quite helpless in a nasty survival of the fittest world?  How could they not go extinct due to being easy prey. If a fossil bird has teeth or claws (similar to a reptile) those features are always fully formed. So all we really have is a bird with teeth and claws on its wings.  So where is all this irrefutable evidence that convinces you the evolution has occurred?  When fossilized bats have been found and are believed to be millions of years old, they look just like modern bats, and the same is said for many other animals as well.  If evolution occurred, it should be so easily demonstrated by the fossils that no one could refute the evidence.

Where did the DNA code suddenly or gradually get the tons of new info necessary to change a scale into a feather? For all the questions you can create to attack a literalist interpretation, the literalist can equal that number of questions attacking evolution. I think it can go on forever. You accuse creationists of concocting far-out explanations to fit their beliefs, but the evolutionists have done the same. I mean, really, “punctuated equilibrium”?!  To say that only one side does this isn’t quite being fair.

As Always, Food for Thought in Christ,

Uncle Dave


Dear Uncle Dave,

Haha, come on now, you just pick the light thing? What about all those other “literal” questions like stars in the “sky” and the moon being a “light”?

I don’t think He wastes his words with us either, but I would think you have to be careful to elevate interpretation over what it actually means. He said the story and you’re the one saying it’s really important that he made dry land before the sea. And not just the order but that this order is emphatic proof against evolution. I’m not so sure God is saying that is an incredibly important aspect to the story, or that if you don’t take it literally then you’re missing out on the whole point…missing the forest for the trees can be just as a big of a mistake of interpretation.

And also, again points back to my questions – if He doesn’t waste words – why use the word “sky”, “produce”, “light” (in describing the moon), “livestock” (in describing animals if none of them were for food), etc.?

How is it so difficult to read it figuratively? It certainly sounds like a figurative non-science-text-book-completely-different-than-chronicles type of passage to me.

It’s a non-analogy to jump to a scientific discussion. All I was pointing out was that a “literalist” isn’t being truly literal in my opinion – you make exceptions to your own interpretation. It’s not a counter-point to say “well, how does science answer these other questions about evolution”? I’ve been obviously attempting to avoid a scientific discussion – and will still side-step it again :0) because that’s not what I’m very interested in. I’d be pointing to scientific consensus and organizations that you believe are overly biased and not credible. I disagree with that basic assumption. I do think they aren’t concerned about Genesis or the existence of God – that’s true – but it’s because science doesn’t care about the why’s or miracles. And right now the best explanation of the available evidence according to the vast majority of scientific organizations is that the earth is very old and evolution occurred. It’s possible for any organization to counter nearly any scientific theory and feel like they have great points. My point all along is that I don’t believe Creationists are convinced in a Young Earth because of the evidence – I think the feeling like evolution is an attack on the correct interpretation of Genesis drives the acceptance of evidence against evolution. Very smart people will believe anything if they feel like they have to. But again, I don’t think a scientific discussion is going to convince you, so I won’t go there.

Hope everyone is enjoying the ride! lol




Hey Chris,

I didn’t answer every question because it would take too long to type. I assume that’s why you do not answer all my questions.

You asked if literalists take everything literally. Of course not, and I sent the following to you a few emails ago:

A literalist would NOT hold that:
* Every word has only one meaning.
* Every passage can only be taken as presenting hard facts.
* Every sentence must be taken as redemptive truth.
* There are no passages with allegorical or figurative meanings.

So, we do allow for the figurative. Our problem is WHEN or WHERE do we draw the line. How far do we go with literal or the figurative? Obviously you go to far with the figurative and I don’t.  🙂

And as far as your moon light question is concerned, I just take it as God provided two ways to light the earth. But if you want to get technical….are you saying that the regular sun’s light is scientifically exactly the same as reflected sunlight? Do the same intensities of ultraviolet light emanate from the moon’s surface toward earth? Are all the properties of those two different lights the same? Maybe it is more accurate to state that there are two lights for earth even though they originate from the same source. My uneducated guess is that there is a difference with reflected light. God did say in Gen 1:16 that the moon’s light was a “lesser” light than the sun’s. Could “lesser” have scientific backing?  Isn’t it safe to assume that only God knows all science and we do not?

Your problem with animals “designed to kill” is stemming from your assumption that the present is the key to understanding the past (uniformitarianism – the heartbeat of evolution). Your assumptions are based on observing ONLY a fallen, sin-cursed state of this world, and that all has stayed the same over the years.  You have never seen the original world or the original functions of body parts. If the evolutionists can make up fantasies about how irreducible complexities could have actually had some functional value as they were evolving (something I find impossible to believe), why can’t the creationist believe that those animal parts did not cause death to others? Seems fair to me. I can even suggest some naturalistic answers for your “problem.” Claws, for example, are also great for tree-climbing. Your uniformitarian assumption has dictated a meat-eating interpretation. Canine teeth are great for tearing bamboo shoots for the Panda Bear. But my main point is that we do not know the half of it. We are just like Job. God got ticked off at him because he was judging God from presumption (his “pea-brained” conceptions) and God let him have it.

The evolutionist’s problem is that he views science naturalistic terms only, and this is the view that evolutionists want everyone to have. The trouble is that it will never be able to get at God’s Truth because that definition has opted God out of any picture or discussion. Hebrews 11:3 states that God made things out of things we cannot see. Evolution always tries to prove the source of things in terms of things we can see. It won’t work. The true evolutionist will never come to an understanding of the creation. Man’s science is severely limited. Man’s intellectual capacity is severely limited. We are NOT on some “Star Trek journey” where we keep getting smarter until we are like God. This, by the way, is the spirit behind evolution – “you will become [evolve] as god” – sound familiar? sorry, but it is a literal quote from the Deceiver in Genesis.  Just because we live in an age of a knowledge explosion, don’t think for a minute that we know a lot. “A lot” is a relative term. Compared to God’s knowledge we know next to nothing.

You said, “Do you think he [sic – I’d appreciate a capital “H” on “he”] literally made light before anything that produces light? Does that make sense literally? So he just redefined physics after he created light?” I don’t know, but you seem to be assuming that any light existing at that time HAD to come from our sun.  Furthermore, as God was creating, I assume He was operating under laws that our science has no clue about. So was He redefining physics? Again, your question assumes we know everything. Maybe he was simply using physics we know nothing about yet. So in this context, I’m not too overly concerned with our neanderthal (pardon the term) ideas about physics and we always need to consider Hebrews 11:3.

Do you think the long ages listed in Genesis are figurative as well? Our science today tells us that living 900 years is impossible, so I assume that you MUST interpret this issue as being figurative. If long ages were recorded as figurative, why? The writers give no hint that they were doing that. If figurative is what you believe, then you’ll be guilty of the same “acrobatics” you accuse the creationists of doing to explain literal interpretations. Why, for example, would the Bible state that Methuselah lived 969 years if it wasn’t literal?  Then those longevities suddenly shortened after The Flood. Did the writers of the Bible suddenly meet and say, “Let’s not be figurative about those ages any more.” See what I mean – acrobatics for explanations. I think it is better to assume the literal and seek scientific evidence about how that would be possible. Maybe it could help our understanding of the aging process. If I’m not correct and you take those ages literally, you are not being consistent with your view of Genesis.

If God inspired the Book of Genesis, I find it impossible to believe that He would tell us so many errors regarding the order of creation. It still makes no sense as to why. If the writer was just guessing based on wrong lore passed down, then the Bible becomes unreliable. If God told the writer to record a figurative text, I’d like to know why. It cannot be to help “ignorant humans” to understand how He did things because stating the correct order of the creation of the earth and the sun would not hinder our understanding. In other words, the nature of the text makes more sense to take literally.

In Him,

Uncle Dave (still enjoying the ride)


Hi Chris,

You have said that creation scientists utilize poor science. This is a difficult conclusion for me to come to because I am not an expert in judging the scientific method. I know some basic principles and that’s about it.  But even a person such as yourself, who would know more than I on methodology, could not draw that conclusion fairly unless you read the details of each experiment or study. I wouldn’t think that you have the time nor the motivation to do so. Hence, your conclusion regarding cs’s poor quality of science must come from mere comments that evolutionists have made against cs people. I also question whether they have looked closely at cs studies. Here is an article which made sense to me. If cs science is flawed, something in this article should catch your attention. It seems to be indicating bias on the evolutionist side. It is brief, but it sounds awfully impressive to me and does contain specific facts regarding the research:


In Him,

Uncle Dave


Dear Uncle Dave,

Right, I mean, I wouldn’t have any sort of sophisticated scientific background either – didn’t even take many science classes in undergrad. But even with that example – the scientists who actually did the research on which that article was based don’t think the results hurt the idea of evolution. They’re just trying to get a better picture of what actually happened, and they proposed a couple of ideas (the abstract). It’s sort of weird for Creationists to take someone else’s research, put their own spin on it, take out a couple of choice phrases, and then say it hurts the overall theory of evolution. That’s not what the paper said at all. And if I were the authors of the research I would be upset that Creationists would be quoting in that way. Heck, it would even make me start avoiding saying certain phrases that display surprise or caution out of a fear that a Creationist organization is going to take it out of context and quote me as evidence against evolution.  Isn’t that quite unfair?

Have a great Easter! Or “Resurrection Day” as Mom likes to call it.



Dear Chris,

I don’t think the creationists were saying that the evolutionists were implying a weakness in evolution. I thought the creationists were saying that parts of the research done by the evolutionists can cause doubt if one is open-minded to the possibility that evolution did not occur. Of course the paper was not saying what COULD be said. The creationists were not misrepresenting the research, but they did, as you say, put a different spin on  it…which is not a sin. In science, we need to view all “spins,” right?

Your Affectionate Uncle,



Dear Uncle Dave,

True, but I think that’s all Creation science will amount to – never-ending small examples of “here’s another problem with evolution!” The creationist movement has been around for a while now, given many challenges to evolution, and the vast majority of scientists are simply undeterred. And I know you believe this is the Devil’s great hoax, but I just don’t think so. I don’t think the majority of scientists are brainwashed – educated, yes, but not brainwashed – and they aren’t out with an agenda to prove Genesis isn’t true.



Dear Chris,

All Mankind has been brainwashed by Satan since the Fall. Do not underestimate his power. If God has not removed that veil, they, like Saul (Paul) will not know the Truth. True, most scientists do not have an agenda, but I some do. There is an arrogant spirit out there that says the Bible is outdated and based upon ignorant superstition. I can’t think of many issues that drive more people away from trusting the Bible than so-called science. If that is the “fruit” of evolutionary science (and it is), then I am automatically conclude that Satanic lies involved among unwitting, educated men and women.  Even from a non-spiritual point of view, several examples throughout history had the majority of scientists wrong (gravity laws, blood-letting, etc.). The majority should never be used as an “acid test” for Truth, and I think you are doing that now. The majority of people are not saved. Shouldn’t science drive people toward God as they discover the rich order and wisdom in the creation? Well, in most cases it doesn’t, and the only reason I see is that evolution has told them that the Bible is not God’s Word.  Oh, they may believe in a creator, but not the Author of the Bible.  So where does that leave them? Unrepentant and unsaved. They have stumbled over the Great Stumbling Stone, as the Scripture predicts.

And no, I do not believe evolution is the Devil’s “hoax.” That’s putting it way too lightly. It is the biggest deception he’s designed (except for the Anti-Christ).

Last thought:  there may be more cracks in your theory in more scientific minds than you think – they may be afraid to indicate such a belief depending on their status and source of income. And creationism has made headway. I do not think it has stagnated as you imply. So we appear to be miles apart on these issues.

To my knowledge there has been no scientific rebuff to the R.A.T.E. (Radio Isotopes and the Age of the Earth) research that examined organic samples from various layers in the earth. They sent their samples to different labs not revealing they were creation researchers (they feared prejudicial treatment of their samples). All samples were tested for C-14. Evolution says higher found samples may contain some C-14 but the lower samples were found, the less you will find. The deepest samples should have no traceable amount left.  RATE found similar amounts of C-14 in ALL samples, no matter what strata level the samples came from. This strongly indicates that these did not die millions of years ago, but only thousands of years ago.  More importantly, it indicates that they all died at the same time. If true, it destroys the geologic column as well as evolutionary history. I’ve attached the abstract. It sounds like good science to me (but what do I know). If you have found any good, scientific proof that the creationists science methodologies were faulty, please let me know.

Lastly, check out John Baumgardner’s credentials. It says that secular circles respect this guy. And this is just one guy that I’m showing you.  http://creationwiki.org/John_Baumgardner

Your Affectionate Uncle,



Dear Uncle Dave,

No problem, I started it!

Here’s one thing I found from a http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html

Other RATE research response: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/osteocalcin.html

There are definitely some respected researchers out there, and I’m sure Dr. Baumgardner is very intelligent.

I just think that most of the research is conducted inside a bubble though, for the most part. I know it’s usually the argument that “well mainstream science is biased so they won’t listen” – but usually creationists get their research from a few specific very-focused organizations. Mainstream scientists, on the other hand, get their information from thousands of universities and organizations that constantly challenge and test each other’s theories. The harder playing ground is definitely the secular world compared to the “creationism bubble.” Creationism, I feel, has done a masterful public relations job, and has convinced many many people in the U.S. that it makes a good argument. But it hasn’t convinced scientists, most of whom I would argue are not refusing to accept the arguments because of an anti-God/Genesis bias but out of good and rational scientific reasons. It hasn’t convinced the courts either – I know Creationists have a spin on the court trials, but the objective reality is that they lost in the courts.



Dear Chris,

I would certainly love to hear Baumgardner’s response to Bertsche’s contamination criticism. It’s easy to find fault, but I’m sure there’s more that can be said in the cs defense in this case. All scientists take special care to prevent contamination. Hence the chance is very small. If critics want to “hang their hat” on that assumption…good luck! However, I sensed a spirit of fairness in Bertsche’s words as he gives credibility to Baumgardner. Hurd’s response, however did not sit well with me. He had “tone.” He had the typical attitude against Bible believers that I do not appreciate.  Again, I’m sure the cs side could muster a defense of the criticisms and make additional points where the evolutionists may would not. I’m not saying that the cs research was perfect. I’m saying that there was enough credibility that more scientists should be stimulated to duplicate the C-14 findings under strict unbiased supervision (have both cs and non-cs researchers doing double-blind studies on this C-14 issue). THAT would be interesting. It does not surpise that the “open-minded” evolutionists are not flocking to gather theier samples for C-14 testing.

Your Affectionate Uncle,