- Why are you a Young Earth creationist?
- Answer requested by Jean Dieudonné
- Johnnie Lockett
- Ambassador for Christ for over 30 years
- Answered Sep 28
- I'm not, but since I was asked to answer, allow me to explain why I don't believe in a so called young earth, though I do believe in a created earth and in the Genesis account as having taken place in six literal earth days.
First, just about any common designation for types of people ending with -ist will not apply to me. I simply don't adhere to any widely known ism except one: theism.
And that's only because theism doesn't refer to a particular belief system, but rather is contained in a simple definition: belief in one God as creator and ruler of the universe. There are no doctrines, no associations, no theories or particular mindsets that all theists share.
All theists in general have in common is they believe the statement above. And they don't even do that in the same way.
But How Can Genesis One Be Literal?
A good question. If what's commonly referred to as “the creation account” is to be taken as having spanned six literal earth days, then how can one rationally believe the earth is millions to billions of years old?
Well, there's a simple explanation. And, honesty, most readers have heard it before—even many nonbelievers. But these nonbelievers will pretend not to have ever heard of it, because it shows there are believers who are not clueless about science, as well as lends plausibility to claims the scriptures do not oppose scientific knowledge.
The simple explanation is that everything in Genesis One after verse two is describing the renewing of the face of the earth from primarily a human (or earthbound) perspective. Verse 1 is describing the initial creation—which was as long ago as scientific knowledge tells us.
Other scriptures indicate the earth was inhabited by angels long before humans arrived, and that after their rebellion, the earth was left in the ruined state the earth has become by verse 2. The Hebrew word translated “was” in “And the earth was without form” could have—and indeed should have—been translated “became,” given the full context of the scriptures.
Now, it's not my intent here to prove all this from the scriptures. That’s up to the reader to do so, if they're so inclined to. Those who regard scripture as true and valid will examine it as they will. Those who do not will disregard this altogether.
My only aim here is to show plausibility for both an old earth and a six-day creation.
I know many readers have heard of this, and that many who have disdain towards it pejoratively refer to it as “The Gap Theory.” Just know, please, that I don't need to hear from you, thanks. It will serve no useful purpose—except to flaunt the fact that you're well read on the various teachings and beliefs.
Somehow, people think naming things make their positions credible or legitimate.
This answer, however, does not presume to carry any authority the reader must submit to. It merely gives my reasoning for believing in an old earth, in a six-day creation, and in the agreement between scripture and known science.
As such, it's not open to debate, dissent, or censure.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I used to believe Gap Theory (with a scenario more like Tolkien’s Silmarrillion than like standard Evolu views) due to dendro chronology to “20 000 BP” conflicting with strict Biblical chronology.
Since then, I have seen how part of dendro actually depends on the not worthless, but for older than agreed historic values very contestable C14 theory : therefore it cannot be used as confirmation of C14.
- Johnnie Lockett
- Besides the broad idea referred to as the Gap Theory, I've never heard of any of these things you've named. And I'm sure none of them have anything to do with what I've said. I'm equally sure none of them defeat my answer.
Even the so-called Gap Theory itself—as it is widely understood—doesn’t line up fully with what I believe. Because my reasons for believing are not only different, but primary based on the scriptures themselves, and not on external sources or arguments.
Any time you put a name on a theory, ideology, or philosophy, you're packaging a series of beliefs and claims as a boxed set. There simply is no set of beliefs you can name to which I subscribe in all points.
So, invoking one of these—either to sum up my position or to oppose my position—is to argue against someone else—not me. With me, you have to be specific, because I am, when it comes to what I believe and the basis for it.
I doubt if how you used to believe “the Gap Theory” is identical to what I believe. What I believe is internally consistent and sound.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I did not claim what I used to believe back then was identic to your use of quasi Gap Theory.
If your use is internally consistent and sound, feel free to expose it.
- Johnnie Lockett
- No, you didn't. But then your response to my answer has no discernible purpose that lends any additional insight to it—but rather gives the impression (intended or not) that what I've said is flawed or somehow in error.
Obviously, by saying you “used to” believe in something I've identified with in its general and broad expression, without making any distinctions, you give that impression—which detracts from my answer.
Whatever your intentions, my concern is the integrity and strength of my answer. I simply don't allow my answers to be diminished by anyone's using them as a platform to voice their contrary views that seem to correct or dismiss them.
My answer needs neither any assistance from anyone else nor haughty declarations from someone claiming or suggesting it is outdated thinking.
- Cannot add reply.