I recently sat down with John Griffin for a discussion about the recent attack on BioLogos from Answers in Genesis, where AiG calls BioLogos a “house of heresy” all because it doesn’t embrace YECism. It’s a short 25-minute video. Enjoy!
My Conversation with John Griffin about the Recent Attack by Answers in Genesis on BioLogos…(and evolution, creation, and how to read your Bible)
In a recent review I wrote of Davidson and Turner’s Manifold Beauty of Genesis One I felt that I better understood the Young Earth Creationist claim. See below
“The date of the creation events in earth history” is an example of a “secondary issue” (122). “What exactly though,” one might wonder, “is wrong with these assertions?” To begin, let us note C. John Collins thoughts:
The argument for a young earth . . . goes like this: the phrases ‘from the beginning of creation’ (Mark 10:6) and ‘from the beginning’ (Matt 19:4, 8) do not refer to the beginning of mankind [sic] but to the beginning of creation itself. Therefore, Jesus was dating the origin of mankind [sic] to a time very shortly after the initial creation of Genesis 1:1. If there is any kind of time very shortly after the initial creation and the beginning of the creation week, or if the week itself lasts much longer than an ordinary week, then we must conclude that Jesus was mistaken (or worse, misleading), and therefore he can’t be God.”
C. John Collins, Science & Faith: Friends or Foes?, 106. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003.
Collins goes on to clarify:
“If this argument is sound, I’m in trouble, because . . . I cannot follow this reading of Genesis 1. On the other hand, I firmly believe in the traditional Christian doctrine of Christ, and tremble at the thought of doing anything to undermine it. But the argument is not sound. It finds its credibility from the way the English “from the beginning” seems so definite; but the Greek is not fixed in meaning.”
C. John Collins, Science & Faith: Friends or Foes?, 106. Italics removed.
What is clear from the above is that Collins does not dismiss the question of the age of the earth as a secondary issue. Instead, he (rightly) ties a proper understanding of these matters to biblical authority via connecting them to the doctrine of Christ (cf. John 18:37).
Whether or not one agrees with this conclusion or even his argument(s), in general, it is clear that Collins gets the ‘heart’ of YEC.
In sum, I believe that Davidson and Turner’s failure to fully appreciate the YEC position seems to indicate an unnecessary (gross?) misunderstanding and, in my estimation, potentially undermines their hope that “this work can serve as a balm on the open wounds that Christians have inflicted on other Christians” (176).
Thoughts?