Is Young-Earth Creationism a Bad Choice? An Answer to Theistic Evolutionists

Recently a prominent theistic evolutionist claimed that young-earth creationism has reached a point of intellectual bankruptcy, both in its science and theology; young-earth creationism is an unnecessary choice. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate these claims. Of first importance is to know why and when decisions go awry, from both a psychological and biblical perspective. I then present the reasons why four scientists choose to believe that young-earth creationism is a true representation of the biblical record of creation. The third section argues that any understanding of Scripture that excludes or indicts the divine Himself is necessarily flawed and false. Introduction An examination of the writings of several prominent evolutionists has shown that young-earth creationists are rarely accurately portrayed (Bell 2002). They create the impression that creationists are either scientifically incompetent or that the quality of their work falls below accepted scientific standards (Kulikovsky 2008). The aim of such ploys is to dismiss or diminish arguments in support of the biblical teaching of creation. These tactics, however, do not stop with secular evolutionists. Recently Dr. Francis Collins, a world-renowned geneticist and founder of The BioLogos Foundation,1 wrote that Young Earth Creationism has reached a point of intellectual bankruptcy, both in its science and in its theology. Its persistence is thus one of the great puzzles and great tragedies of our time. By attacking the fundamentals of virtually every branch of science, it widens the chasm between the scientific and spiritual worldviews, just at a time where a pathway toward harmony is desperately needed (Collins 2007, p. 177). Collins and president of BioLogos professor of biology, Dr. Darrel Falk, think that the young-earth creationist “perspective is the equivalent of insisting that two plus two is really not equal to four” (Collins 2007, p. 174). Young-earth creationism is therefore an unnecessary and profoundly dangerous choice between the available alternatives (Collins 2007, pp. 178, 211). Collins words his preferred choice as follows: “I find theistic evolution, or BioLogos, to be by far the most scientifically consistent and spiritually satisfying of the alternatives” (Collins 2007, p. 210). Philosopher Dr. Francis Beckwith agrees with Collins, explaining that he is sympathetic to atheist Richard Dawkins’ bewilderment of why Dr. Kurt Wise—a Harvard University trained paleontologist— has embraced what appears to many Christians as a false choice between one controversial interpretation of Scripture (young-earth creationism) and abandoning Christianity altogether (Beckwith 2009, p. 58). Seemingly, Wise’s only mistake is that he has not chosen theistic evolution. Totally absent from Beckwith’s discussion, however, is a presentation of the reasons why Wise chose to believe that youngearth creationism is a true representation of the biblical record of creation. For the purposes of this paper, I have narrowed the alternatives down to two. The first, the secular evolutionist position is expressed by professor of biology Douglas Futuyma as follows: Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence, for no natural 1 The BioLogos Foundation consists of a group of Christians—scientists, philosophers, theologians, pastors and educators—who believe “that evolution, properly understood, best describes God’s work of creation” (BioLogos).