Tell us about the dinosaurs

[Ryft]

[Do you believe] that a position based more on Scripture than anything else is irrational?

No, of course not. By definition a position is "rational" if it conforms to the logical principles of sound reason; i.e., the predicate of rationality is logical validity and consistency. What I find irrational is the "highly specified young-earth creationism" advanced by the likes of Statler, and for three reasons: (1) it reasons invalidly in places, (2) it is widely inconsistent both internally and externally, and (3) its interpretation of Scripture is at times incongruent, eisegetic, or altogether absent. The fact that it is "based more on Scripture than anything else" is not what makes it irrational, but rather that it is defended with dubious hermeneutics and impaired logic.

Given the fact that some of your colleagues over at The Aristophrenium clearly take a young-earth creationist position, do you think such disparaging invective as [found] here is appropriately directed at such as them? Or when you say you "understand" such invective being applied, do you merely mean you understand the point of view of the person who provides such invective but you do not agree with it personally?

The latter, since disparaging invective is just rhetorical censure that is contrary to reasoned discourse, which I find puerile and useless. While certain atheists understandably find it entertaining and enjoyable to engage in, myself and others prefer the intellectual currency of reasoned discourse (like Adrian, which is why I have such respect for him). Moreover, there are Christians who are young-earth creationists ultimately because they are told it's the only truly biblical view from people they trust (parents, friends, pastors, scholars); due to their love for God and his word, they haven't explored competing views without the filter of young-earth literature. Consequently, my respect for their devotion and vulnerable fidelity is further reason for my refusal to hit them with gratuitous invective; in other words, it's not only contrary to reasoned discourse but also insensitive to their authentic concerns. Simply put, disparaging invective has no intelligent place.

I tried to pin you down, in a short email exchange a few months ago, as to what your position is and the reasoning that led you to it, but you failed to email me an answer to my last questions.

Since I get a lot of emails every week, could you refresh my memory as to who you are (name or email address)? I do my best to stay on top of my email discussions and answer every question, but some can and do get missed. I'm pretty sure I've answered all the creationism emails I've been receiving, but it's possible I've dropped yours somehow. Both Marc Kay and Andrew Kulikovski have become preoccupied with real life concerns so I do have inbox space available again.

You did say that Scripture was ultimately authoritative ... but you failed to take a position, other than to say you lean toward old-earth creationism. ... You seem to be really good at tearing down the arguments of others and do so on a regular basis. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it might be nice if you also opened up your actual position on some of these issues to the scrutiny of others, instead of just sitting on the sidelines taking pot shots at everyone else's position.

That is primarily because I am still in the process of developing my view. For years after my conversion to Christianity, I was also a young-earth creationist. But after developing a passion for science (thanks in large part to Carl Sagan), I found that view untenable, unable to reconcile what my church taught me with what science taught me. Then roughly five years ago someone gave me a book by Hugh Ross and I ended up exploring progressive creationism, which was said to be consistent with both Scripture and science. But as my knowledge of Scripture increased, I soon found that view untenable, as its explanation of Genesis 1 just didn't seem to square with the text. Consequently, until this year, I was neither a young-earth creationist nor an old-earth creationist (although I was convinced the earth was very old). It was a weird place to be, but I could not in good conscience settle on either view; one conflicted with science, the other conflicted with Genesis 1.

Then in spring of this year I discovered a book by John Walton called The Lost World of Genesis 1: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, published by InterVarsity Press (from the Westminster Theological Seminary bookstore), in which he provided an interpretation of Genesis 1 that was so thorough and sound that it was impossible to deny, an historico-grammatical exegesis that all young-earth literature was missing which also proved that the conflict with science was pointless—because, as he shows, Genesis 1 is not about material creation in the first place. That is, although we know from Scripture that God is the creator of the material cosmos, Genesis 1 itself is not that story. Both young-earth and old-earth creationists mistakenly view the text as being about material creation because their ontology is brought to the text (eisegesis), not derived from it (exegesis). As Walton shows, the Israelites of the ancient Near East did not view ontology in material terms; they had a 'functional' ontology and Genesis 1 describes creation in those terms, of God creating functions and functionaries in a literal seven-day cosmic temple inauguration (literal week consisting of 24-hour days). In our thinking, causing something to exist (i.e., to create) is about giving it material properties, whereas for the ancient world causing something to exist was about giving it a function and a role. Thus the narrative of Genesis 1 starts with no functions—not with no matter—and assigns functions and functionaries by separating and naming.

It is a groundbreaking, detailed, and scholarly exegesis that unlocks the message of Genesis 1 like no other literature on the subject ever has, whose temple motif reflects Old Testament theology and God's ongoing role in the world as its sovereign. As such, I am therefore accepting this view in tentative and provisional steps as I cross-check and research his ample footnotes and references from both historical and biblical scholars, in addition to auditing his debates with emerging critics (e.g., Vern Poythress). As you can tell from The Aristophrenium, I have no reservations about presenting and defending my positions, but only those which I am properly informed and convinced of and clearly understand. My current view of Genesis and creation is still too fresh and developing, so my commentary on these issues is reserved to critiques of views that don't work and why.