Let me pull together some of the threads presented thus far. I’ve pointed to a few examples of “conflicts” between Christianity and science that ultimately amount to propaganda. Many people think that religious beliefs have been refuted by modern scientific discoveries. Belief that the human individual has an intrinsic value and worth, for example, has supposedly been refuted by scientific discoveries that the universe is incomprehensibly huge, and that the earth is not at its center. Never mind why the size of the universe or our geographical location therein would have any bearing on our significance.{i} I further pointed out that this perception of conflict is not merely mistaken, and not merely a misunderstanding, but is essentially a propaganda campaign of disinformation.
This meta-narrative of a conflict between science and Christianity has many results in western society and culture. For example, the Jesus Seminar based their presupposition that God can’t perform miracles on the discovery of Copernicus and Galileo that the earth goes around the sun rather than vice-versa.
The contemporary religious controversy, epitomized in the Scopes trial and the continuing clamor for creationism as a viable alternative to the theory of evolution, turns on whether the worldview reflected in the Bible can be carried forward into this scientific age and retained as an article of faith. Jesus figures prominently in this debate. The Christ of creed and dogma, who had been firmly in place in the Middle Ages, can no longer command the assent of those who have seen the heavens through Galileo’s telescope. The old deities and demons were swept from the skies by that remarkable glass. Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo have dismantled the mythological abodes of the gods and Satan, and bequeathed us secular heavens.{ii}
Brazen words for people who refuse to look through Hubble’s telescope (or the Hubble telescope for that matter).
I also pointed out that Christians often respond to these attacks by embracing the position that its critics denounce. When we are told that our faith leads to absurd scientific conclusions, some feel it necessary to accept the absurd conclusions. Thus, the claim, invented in the 19th century, that people thought the earth was flat before Columbus’s voyages spurred some Christians to argue that the Bible actually teaches a flat earth, and to produce reams of scientific evidences defending it.
The young-earth movement
Part of my motivation for writing this book is that I believe the focus on young-earth creationism is another attempt by the secular world to justify disregarding Christianity. And just as some Christians have bought into the flat earth and geocentrism, some have made a young earth a central point in their concept of Christianity.
Often, when I question those who believe that the days of creation were calendar days, they’ll say something like, “Well, that’s what the Bible says.” Usually, they’ll refer to Gen. 1, particularly verse 5, and say “You don’t think that sounds like normal days?” My response to this is to say, “I certainly think it does—in English.” Then I’ll go over some of the aspects of Hebrew that bear on the day-age interpretation, such as how the ancient Hebrew vocabulary was much smaller than modern English, and that words therefore had broader semantic ranges; that understanding yom as a long period of time qualifies as a literal definition of the Hebrew term; that there is a discontinuity in Gen. 1:5 which is not as evident in English as it is in Hebrew, etc. Then I’ll more directly refer to some of the biblical arguments that I’ve presented in this book, such as the nature of day six or seven. This isn’t to make them feel bad or to challenge them; it’s just to get them to think about whether the calendar-day interpretation is as infallible as they think.
As I’ve already stated, the vast majority of young-earth proponents hold their views because they believe the Word of God obligates them to do so. Many have invested time and personal resources into promoting young-earth creationism. If we think they are misguided in doing so, we must always keep at the front of our minds that their actions are done out of a devotion to God and his Word. Put yourself in their place: they have made sacrifices in order to honor God and further his Kingdom, and are now being told that their efforts were not only misguided, but counter-productive. This would be difficult for anyone to accept, but for them, it also involves the idea that they were mistaken while faithfully walking with Christ. Why would God allow them to be mistaken, when he was truly with them, and all they wanted to do is serve and glorify him?
But all theological issues within orthodoxy face this problem, with good and godly people on all sides. Many Christian scholars have devoted their lives to promoting a particular take on a certain theological issue; many Christian laymen have devoted their time, effort, and money into supporting a ministry that takes a particular theological stance. But they could still be wrong. Calvinists and Arminians aren’t both right. Or consider the various positions on eschatology, the doctrine of end times. Plenty of people have devoted a great deal of time and effort into promoting a pre-tribulation, post-tribulation, or mid-tribulation rapture, pre-millenialism, post-millenialism, a-millenialism, dispensationalism, etc. Since all of these positions can’t be true, are we justified in concluding that those who end up being incorrect are not faithfully walking with Christ, or that Christ is not with them? Of course not.
The point of all this is that just because God infallibly speaks, it does not mean that we infallibly hear. Devotion to God and his Word must be balanced with humility, and the recognition that we make mistakes: just because God is infallible, it does not follow that we can’t misunderstand him. Dallas Willard makes this point beautifully: “One great cause of confusion is that people make infallibility a condition of hearing God. It helps, I believe and hope, to understand that God’s word is communication and that communication occurs constantly in contexts where infallibility is completely out of the question. The infallibility of the speaker—as is the case when God is the speaker—does not and need not guarantee infallibility of the hearer.”{iii}
Leaders of the young-earth movement
Unfortunately, many leaders of the young-earth movement resolutely refuse to accept this, and represent any disagreement with them as disagreement with God. Beneath the claim that they hold their beliefs because of their submission to God and his Word is a complete unwillingness to consider the possibility that they—not God—could have made a mistake. This is not an act of humility. Often, when referring to Christians who disagree with them, they insert some qualifier to the extent that such people claim to be Christians; which of course implies that they may not be.
At the beginning of this book, I argued that there are some parallels between many leaders (not all) of young-earth creationism and those of flat-earth creationism. I think it’s important to point out that the similarities between them run deep. Both claim that their interpretation of the Bible is God’s Word itself, and hence to deny their view is to deny inerrancy and pits man against God. Both claim that the denial of their interpretation makes one a “compromiser,” and leads to the denial of central doctrines. Both claim that their positions are the traditional ones, and that the denial of their interpretation is a purely recent phenomenon. Both claim that the denial of their interpretation makes God into an incompetent Creator. Both claim that the denial of their interpretation leads to apostasy, immorality, and licentiousness. And on it goes.{iv}
Additionally, many leaders (and again, not all) of the young-earth movement explicate their position with the same bluster one finds in flat-earth creationist literature, characterized by hostility, an obnoxious self-righteousness, and a feigned overconfidence which is used to try to bully their audience into acquiescence. Of course, every position has its adherents that resort to such tactics, as well as those that don’t. However, for some positions, this is the modus operandi, and this certainly seems to be the case for the majority of young-earth literature. This can easily be verified by simply reading young-earth literature for oneself to see whether it engages in such methods.
The main point in this is that manipulative tactics such as these are not the way of Christ in whom we are to let our “yes” be yes and our “no” be no (Mt. 6:37; Jms. 5:12). When we engage in such behavior
We are making use of people, trying to bypass their understanding and judgment to trigger their will and possess them for our purposes. Whatever consent they give to us will be uninformed because we have short-circuited their understanding of what is going on. … As God’s free creatures, people are to be left to make their decisions without coercion or manipulation. Hence, “let your affirmation be just an affirmation,” a yes, and your denial be just a denial, a no. Anything more than this “comes from evil”—the evil intent to get one’s way by verbal manipulation of the thoughts and choices of others.
Kingdom rightness respects the soul need of human beings to make their judgments and decisions solely from what they have concluded is best. It is a vital, a biological need. We do not thrive, nor does our character develop well, when this need is not respected, and this thwarts the purpose of God in our creation.{v}
We must always remember that our fallen nature leads us into self-justification, where we use any reason or excuse to avoid having to admit that we are in error.{vi} This is true for everyone, but is especially dangerous for the Christian, since we have God in our arsenal of excuses. It is all too easy to use God as a pretext to be disrespectful or to express hatred for or contrived amusement at those who disagree with us. But Christ calls upon us to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15), to show mercy towards those who doubt (Jude 22), and to give our reasons for our faith with gentleness and respect (1 Pet. 3:15; cf. 2 Tim. 2:24-26). If our words do not express love as well as truth, we are not revealing God.{vii}
Such rhetoric is, of course, not limited to flat and young-earth creationism: anyone familiar with the sophistry of atheist and anti-Christian literature, for example, will immediately recognize that it also has precisely these same qualities. I submit that when one tries to marginalize or demonize his opponents, regardless of whether it is in the defense of a flat earth, a young earth, atheism, or whatever, it tends to indicate an inability to defend one’s position more than anything else.
The evidence for a flat earth
In fact, I would argue that the proposed biblical evidence for a flat earth is much more convincing than the proposed biblical evidence for a young earth. After all, the Bible refers to the “ends of the earth” plenty of times, and even to the “four corners of the earth.” Likewise, when Satan tempted Jesus by bringing him to the top of a high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world (Matt. 4:8; Luke 4:5), a flat earth could be implied, since maybe Satan brought him up there not to show him a vision, but so that he could see far enough to actually view “all the kingdoms of the world.” Similarly, the fact that, upon Christ’s return, all of the nations of the world will simultaneously see “the sign of the Son of Man” in the sky and “the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky” (Matt. 24:30), could imply a flat earth, since how could people on opposite sides of a globe see the same thing? Don’t misunderstand me: I’m not saying that the Bible actually teaches a flat earth.{viii} I’m just saying that it’s at least as plausible to interpret the Bible this way as it is to interpret it as teaching a young earth. After all, the only real biblical evidence for a young earth is that the days of creation are called “days.”
Some have even argued that the proffered scientific evidence for “zetetic astronomy,” the scientific framework of flat-earth creationism, seems comparable to that for “scientific creationism” or “flood geology.”{ix} For example, at the beginning of the 20th century, Lady Elizabeth Blount, a popular flat-earth proponent of the time, financed an experiment: she went to the Bedford Canal to demonstrate that the water’s surface was not curved (as should be the case if the earth is round), but flat.
She hired a photographer, Mr Clifton of Dallmeyer’s, who in May 1904 went up to the Bedford Level, equipped with the firm’s latest Photo-Telescopic Camera. The apparatus was set up at one end of the clear six-mile length, while at the other end Lady Blount and some scientific gentlemen hung a large, white, calico sheet over the Bedford bridge so that the bottom of it was near the water. It was about 15 feet square, and had been made for her by some ladies who lived nearby. Mr Clifton, lying down near Welney bridge with his camera lens two feet above the water level, observed by telescope the hanging of the sheet, and found that he could see the whole of it down to the bottom. This surprised him, for he was an orthodox globularist and round-earth theory said that over a distance of six miles the bottom of the sheet should be more than 20 feet below his line of sight. His photograph showed not only the entire sheet but its reflection in the water below. This was certified in his report to Lady Blount, which concluded:I should not like to abandon the globular theory off-hand, but, as far as this particular test is concerned, I am prepared to maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water present a level surface.
The photograph was published in The Earth and other journals, and Lady Blount enjoyed her triumph. A long correspondence took place in the popular science magazine, English Mechanic, in which the orthodox tried to explain away the photograph as something to do with “refraction” or “mirages”, while Lady Blount responded voluminously in prose, verse, songs and quotations from the Bible. She reminded readers of Richard Proctor’s statement in one of his authoritative works on astronomy: “If with the eye a few inches above the surface of the Bedford Canal, an object close to the water, six miles distant from the observer can be seen, then manifestly there would be something wrong with the accepted theory.” That test had now been made, and the accepted theory had come out of it badly. On the strength of it Lady Blount proclaimed that the earth’s flatness had been scientifically proved.{x}
The author, writing in 1984, then concludes that “There is obviously a need for further experiments at the Old Bedford Level,” which strongly suggests that this test has never been refuted.
In a similar vein, as mentioned earlier, some of the evidence Samuel Rowbotham (or “Parallax”) employed to argue for a flat earth were lighthouses that could be seen from further away than they should if the surface of the earth is curved. All of this evidence was correctly annotated from genuine reference works, and some of these lighthouses have since been destroyed, making refutation difficult, if not impossible.{xi} But of course it does not follow from any of this that the earth is actually flat. Thus, a 19th century Christian critic wrote, “The proper conclusion from the above facts is, that either there is a misprint in the [reference] book at these places, or that the localities where these lighthouses are situated possess some peculiarities which, if known, would account for these deviations. For it is a monstrous assertion which ‘Parallax’ makes … that one single instance, like the one he mentions, entirely destroys the doctrine of the earth’s rotundity.”{xii} Such a conclusion is equally appropriate for Lady Blount’s experiment.
The point
I realize drawing such parallels must be offensive to young-earth proponents, and I apologize for this. It is not my intention to insult anyone, but I know it’s hard not to feel insulted when a belief you hold dear, a belief that you associate with the Bible, and see as a linchpin establishing a larger context, is compared to another belief that is irrational in the extreme. All I can say is that I believe these parallels and the points they make are valid and significant. As Augustine wrote over 1,500 years ago,
There is knowledge to be had, after all, about the earth, about the sky, about the other elements of this world, about the movements and revolutions or even the magnitude and distances of the constellations, about the predictable eclipses of moon and sun, about the cycles of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, fruits, stones and everything else of this kind. And it frequently happens that even non-Christians will have knowledge of this sort in a way that they can substantiate with scientific arguments or experiments. Now it is quite disgraceful and disastrous, something to be on one’s guard against at all costs, that they should ever hear Christians spouting what they claim our Christian literature has to say on these topics, and talking such nonsense that they can scarcely contain their laughter when they see them to be toto caelo, as the saying goes, wide of the mark. And what is so vexing is not that misguided people should be laughed at, as that our authors should be assumed by outsiders to have held such views and, to the great detriment of those about whose salvation we are so concerned, should be written off and consigned to the waste paper basket as so many ignoramuses.
Whenever, you see, they catch out some members of the Christian community making mistakes on a subject which they know inside out, and defending their hollow opinions on the authority of our books, on what grounds are they going to trust those books on the resurrection of the dead and the hope of eternal life and the kingdom of heaven, when they suppose they include any number of mistakes and fallacies on matters which they themselves have been able to master either by experiment or by the surest of calculations? It is impossible to say what trouble and grief such rash, self-assured know-alls cause the more cautious and experienced brothers and sisters. Whenever they find themselves challenged and taken to task for some shaky and false theory of theirs by people who do not recognize the authority of our books, they try to defend what they have aired with the most frivolous temerity and patent falsehood by bringing forward these same sacred books to justify it. Or they even quote from memory many things said in them which they imagine will provide them with valid evidence, not understanding either what they are saying, or the matters on which they are asserting themselves (1 Tim. 1:7).{xiii}
Notes:
{i} I address the former in chapter 10. On the latter, see Dennis Danielson (2001); (2003).
{ii} Robert W. Funk, et al. (1993), 2.
{iii} Dallas Willard (1999), 196.
{iv} I originally had quotes from both young-earth and flat-earth literature to illustrate each of these points, but upon reflection decided it was gratuitous, and not to include them here.
{v} Willard (1998).
{vi} For a painful example, see Andre Kolé and Jerry MacGregor (1998), 71-2.
{vii} See Willard (1998), 217-31; (2002), 237-9; Mark D. Roberts (2003), 101-15.
{viii} I address some of the claims that the Bible teaches a flat earth in the Introduction.
{ix} Please note that the claim here is the equation of these two systems, not necessarily the equation of a flat earth with a young earth. Some, indeed, have claimed that it’s more scientifically plausible to believe that the earth is flat than to believe that it is only several thousand years old. For example, Nobel laureate scientist Murray Gell-Mann made this precise claim in his testimony before the United States Supreme Court in 1987. A similar claim is made in Robert J. Schadewald (1992). Personally, I find it difficult to take such claims seriously.
{x} John Michell (1984), 29-30.
{xi} Schadewald (1992).
{xii} M. R. Bresher (1868).
{xiii} Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis 1:39.