"Expelled" Movie Comments (Part 6: Interpreting "Day" in Genesis)

by Bernie Dehler, 5-9-08

A lot of my readers are getting freaked-out by my latest writing on evolution and theology. Here's what one wrote:

"I have to admit I have lost confidence in you if you really can support evolution. You really need to study Ken Ham’s material. Go to Answers in Genesis website. Go to the creation museum near Cincinnati. If you cannot believe the first 11 books of Genesis you cannot believe the rest of the Bible."

Do you notice how this person thinks there is only one way to interpret the creation story in Genesis, and that is the young earth interpretation? This is why I'm writing on this subject-- the vast majority of Christians have not been exposed to all the Christian views on Scripture.

Actually, I'm not one who would argue for the inerrancy of Scripture. The "inspiration" of Scripture, yes, but not "inerrancy." But that's a different and lengthy topic.

However, even amongst those who hold the Bible to be inerrant have three different ways to interpret the six creation days in Genesis 1.

1. One day = 24 hrs.
2. One day is an indeterminate length of eons of time (day-age view).
3. One day does not relate to time at all and is a literary device (framework view). This position supports neither "young earth" or "old earth," but it is mostly those who are "old earth" who would be open to this #3 option.

These views are spelled-out and debated in a book called "The Genesis Debate." Click here to see/buy it at Amazon.com . Too many Christians are taught nothing on this subject, or are taught just one view from their church. Most Christians have no idea as to the depth of variety within Christianity in Biblical interpretation.

Something else that strikes me as strange: Ken Ham and his ministry are adamant about the "young earth" theory, yet they support ID which is mainly "old earth." Why does Ken Ham support ID, then? It is because they like the part of ID that talks about a designer being a scientific theory. ID tries to make peace with young earther's, by not mentioning ages of the earth/universe, but they are not in agreement. It seems to me like a divorce in the making... simply a "marriage of convenience" for now.

For those who want to learn more, I hope you read the book I mentioned. Sad to say, this is not something that you can simply ask your pastor and then believe him/her (although I do recommend trying to get their opinion as one datapoint). These are things you have to study for yourself.

-----
Series on the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"
Website: http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

Comments

[DY]

Hi Bernie,

Just to clarify, I don't have a problem with a Christian having questions about or even believing in some form of evolution, but your last e-mail wasn't solely about simply believing in or holding some kind of opinion (or question) about evolution... It was specifically about discarding the biblical Adam as being a myth; Something that (I believe) requires you to throw out much more than just Adam because of how the details written about him are present throughout all of Scripture and connect, just as intimately, with other persons mentioned in context.

You Wrote:

God either made Adam (the first human) from dirt as Genesis says, or God made Adam through evolution (from lower life-forms) as evolution says. It looks to me like there is overwhelming evidence for evolution when looking at the human genome (pseudogenes and the chromosomal difference between apes/humans). Therefore, Adam was not the first human and the rest of the Adam/Eve story should likewise not be taken literally.

Let me then plainly qualify (as I understand it) what you have just implied: According to you, the Genesis account concerning Adam and Eve is false and your opinion and the theory of evolution are more reliable (and certainly more plausible) than Scripture. Since, according to your opinion, we essentially cannot trust the Genesis account concerning Adam and Eve (as a literal event), where should we draw the line? Who gets to interpret what is literal and not literal? From my understanding, context has always directed us concerning how these passages were intended by the authors, but is your opinion and popular scientific theory now the deciding factor? Now, it would seem, context is irrelevant by your reasoning, isn't that right?

If the story of Adam and Eve is not to be taken literally, are we to also disregard his genealogy? That would be logical wouldn't it? In fact, given this line of reasoning (where scientific theory is placed above clear Scriptural statement) we might just as easily disregard every mention of a miraculous happening in Scripture as well... right down to the scientifically implausible miracles and especially the resurrection of Jesus Christ! Do you still believe the Gospel Bernie? Do you believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead? If so, why? How is it that God could raise Jesus from the dead in an instant, and that makes believable sense (though scientifically unlikely), but He cannot create man in a day from dust? I'm just trying to get a line on the logic because, right now, what you're saying is a confusing mess. Did Jesus really walk on water? Did He really heal in an instant the diseased, rotting flesh of lepers? Did He really raise a 4 day rotten corpse from the dead when He called out Lazarus? Did He really cause actual money to instantly appear in the mouth of a fish (without years of evolution to manufacture the coin)? Do you honestly believe anything that the Bible says when you are concluding that the story of Adam and Eve is figurative and not scientifically plausible?

Have you considered all this? What is the impact of your opinion with regard to the entire biblical doctrine concerning the depravity of man and the necessity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? If Adam is a fictional account, only included to imply some inspirational message (whatever that may be), then at what point - on down the line of history - do you then conclude which other biblical figures are literal or fictional - let alone significant? And why stop there? Perhaps you can also explain which doctrines, laws or admonishments should be taken literally or figuratively? If clearly stated Scripture is suddenly unreliable then who would even care (at that point) what message the "figurative" story was trying to convey? The problem seems far greater than simply people getting upset about whether or not someone has questions about evolution. Don't you think? This is not a response of someone being "offended" at you Bernie... It's the response of someone who is hearing you speak about "what is logical" and then showing no evidence of clear, consistent logic at all.

Your presenting this personal struggle you are having with the selective validity of Scripture may create more confusion as to leaving people to wonder what your intentions/motives are because, up until now, you have emphasized Scripture as being pretty important. For example, with the tithing subject (and your endorsing of Russell's book), Scripture has been a critical foundation for your defending against false teaching and even the errors of men like John Hagee, etc. But if now, because what the Bible says about Adam doesn't fit into your comprehension of the creation of the universe, you just decide it's probably all myth (regardless of what Scripture presents in uniform continuity) and because you now seem to be valuing extra-biblical reasoning over what Scripture says itself, then (one might just as easily wonder) what's the value of all your other research and defense of so-called "truth" concerning tithing or false preachers or anything else related to the Christian Faith? Do you understand what I am saying bro?

Perhaps I'm over-stating things, but I'm just trying to get a line on the logic here. I've never been a fan of "pick and choose theology", which seems to be what we're really talking about here. When you go down that road, you yourself become an unreliable voice in some respects because you throw out a foundational element and replace it with something that is subjective only to your changing opinion. It might be better if you just leave the Bible and God out of your arguments from this point on because otherwise you're just using those things to manipulate others with your opinion. In other words, how can you say something is true "because the Bible says so" when you have so boldly demonstrated that you don't even always believe what the Bible says.

Since apparently the Bible is not telling us the truth about Adam (a person who is given repeated attention to as being a real person with a defined origin, a length of days, a lineage, an historical significance as well as a spiritual example), maybe the Bible is also being "dishonest" about other things? Maybe the Bible is not being "literal" about tithing (maybe it was, in fact, money and its mention of "food" in Scripture is just figurative like Adam)? Maybe the Bible is unreliable concerning the Gospel? Perhaps the story of Jesus is just a nice story and didn't really happen at all, but is there to make us better people? Maybe no one can actually know Jesus? Heck, maybe Jesus never existed (let alone rose from the dead)? After all, science can't produce a body, bones or even a certainty about the grave itself... Maybe heaven is a fraud too (or, for that matter, hell); just "figurative" language to guilt people into subservience to some kind of moral persuasion? After all, there's no scientific proof of the existence of heaven or hell either.

Forgive me for being so direct with this but, one might logically wonder what the "free good news" you are intending to present actually is now? Is it whatever you feel like? Is it whatever you think is wise in your own eyes? What is the "good news" Bernie? How do you know it's good news? That's a fair question isn't it, given what you have shared? How much of the Bible should we trust and believe? Apparently, you are willing to scrap large sections of it now because you can't make it fit with your limited human understanding. As I said at the start of this, I don't have problems with the examination of the matter of Intelligent Design and the process. But you went beyond that when you openly admitted that you are leaning toward the belief that the mention of Adam and Even in Scripture is only figurative and in no way literal, despite the mountain of Scripture reference to the contrary. That squarely puts Scripture in the "unreliable" category - by implication. Doesn't it? If not, please explain your logic on this.

You Wrote (in an article on your website):

"...does what you believe about science really affect your theology? It sure does! As I become more of a "theistic evolutionist," a big part of my work that lies ahead of me is trying to understand theology with this new scientific understanding. Lots of theology is built upon the "origin's question" regarding Adam and Eve."

And that is why I wrote all this in response bro. It seems that the majority of your examination is based on the qualification of human logic and reason, not faith or supernatural conviction and certainly not with any indication that Scripture is a reliable influence (or at least it appears to be becoming less of one for you). Because of that fact, it makes it hard to even bring Scripture into the equation or conversation with you, because your persuasions are now apparently validated by extra-biblical and scientific theory more than anything else. I'm trying to understand you and don't want to judge you unfairly. There seems to be a lot you have questions about, even to the point of re-examining your entire theology. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I have my questions about things too. Is there an impacting faith that motivates all this "research" Bernie or, at your core, are you mostly finding you just have more and more questions and don't know? I'm curious how your relationship with the Lord impacts you. I see so much "examination" and questioning, and debate, and not much testimony of the already present faith within you. Was your "salvation" by logic or faith because of a recognizable, God-placed conviction in your heart? I'm just curious. Maybe I'm just wired differently than you. I don't get anxious about this kind of stuff. My desires are generally pretty basic; to know God as closely as I possibly can. My faith sustains me, it doesn't leave me with anxiety or a quest to try and decide which parts of the Bible are believable or not.

I love you man and I think you are a great guy and I don't discredit your right to explore and examine what you believe, but I am just trying to extract a plain answer from you on these things - if you feel like sharing one. Is your salvation now in question too? Is your faith in a living Christ whom you genuinely believe in, with all your heart, regardless of the logic of flesh alone (be it science or whatever)? Or has your message begun to change a bit? You said, "what you believe about science really affects your theology"... All I know is that what I believe about the Gospel, affects my whole life. God has never let me down and there is that constant sense of His literal presence here with me. Science can't explain that and I don't need it to. I have no desire to try and pick through the Scriptures and see what will line up with my scientific opinions. I just don't relate to that kind of focus or concern. To me, there are far more critical and beneficial regards to engage.

As I said, I don't mind the questions and I'm not offended by a man who honestly admits he's on a search. I can respect that. I hope, despite my sometimes clumsy speech, I have illustrated - at least a little bit - why I think this subject goes beyond simply examining various theories about "Intelligent Design" vs. Evolution. In the little bit you said, you actually said a mouthful and I'm just trying to sort it out. What exactly is your message now Bernie? How much has it changed? I desire the truth too bro and I desire for you to find a peace concerning these things. Logic is a fascinating road and has its merits along the way, but without faith that becomes the primary evidence of what your logic cannot qualify, it's only ultimately an empty road. True logic is found in the person of Jesus Christ (the logos of God) and it is something that is supernaturally realized. Faith to believe it comes from God Himself. It's a happy day when a man who has spent his life searching for the right way, searching for the truth, and trying to find the meaning of life, discovers The Way, The Truth, and the Life in none other than Jesus Christ Himself. Only you know what conviction lies at the core of your heart. I will be praying for you bro, that God would open your understanding, grant you real peace, and total freedom from confusion, doubt, and anxiety.

In His grip,
DY

[Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com]

Hi Dave-

I'm trying to figure out the theology. Others have gone before me on the same trail, such as CS Lewis. Unfortunately, they didn't write much about it, so I have to rediscover and search these things out. Just because I'm searching doesn't mean I should be silent an let people feel comfortable against evolution (as if it is atheistic as the 'expelled' movie indicates), because I think evolution is pretty much proven as God's means of creation.

I'm certainly not the only Christian who thinks Adam was not a real person and Genesis is to be taken metaphorically (non-historically). There are many Christian scholars who feel the same way, and I have yet to study all their works.

I'm not advocating the throwing out of all miracles, only those that science has disproven. If Adam was made from dirt rather than evolution, the human genome would show that. Pseudogenes, to me, show strong evidence that all life-forms are related and can show how man evolved from an ape-like creatures. Did Jesus rise from the dead? Science can never say, because it is not something open to scientific evaluation- it was a historical event that either happened or didn't. Creation, however, is different in that DNA leaves evidence of where it came from.

I am still advocating the study of Scripture, and what is really at dispute is the interpretation of Scripture. So many don't know it, but there is great debate within the church over Genesis, and I am happy to bring that to light and awaken people from their slumber who don't think of such things. In that way, everybody has to "pick and choose" as there is no one correct way to interpret these things amongst Christians (unless we all think our own way is correct and everyone else is wrong).

You wrote:

"Was your "salvation" by logic or faith because of a recognizable, God-placed conviction in your heart?"

I was saved when I understood the gospel (with my heart and head). Everyday I grow and learn. I think if we are all healthy, we are all learning and sometimes change our minds on big ideas. I'm still a Christian, but my Christianity is much different. It is more like the "CS Lewis" or "Francis Collins" or "Alister McGrath" kind of Christian, rather than a "Ken Ham" or "Hugh Ross" kind of Christian. If you know those guys, you'll know what I mean.

As I told you before, I'd appreciate shorter emails. You like to type, don't
you! ;-) Let me know if there is a direct question that I missed in your long post that you want me to address.

Bernie

[Dean]

I have to admit I have lost confidence in you if you really can support evolution. You really need to study Ken Ham’s material. Go to Answers in Genesis website. Go to the creation museum near Cincinnati. If you cannot believe the first 11 books of Genesis you cannot believe the rest of the Bible. Only God was present at the time of creation. Why not believe His Word on the subject. Unfortunately the church at large as bought into the lie of evolution. It is not scientific at all. Have you ever seen a brick turn into a building all by itself? Walk through a cemetery do you see the grave stones getting bigger/nicer or are they deteriorating? The law of thermal dynamics. The bottom line is do you believe God or man? By the way the word day in Genesis literally means a 24 hour day. Ken Ham’s material is a must for you to evaluate.

Sincerely,

A concerned brother in Christ,

Dean

[Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com]

Hi Dean-

I think you need to listen to more sources than just Ken Ham and young earther's. "A man seems right until another comes along and questions him." I think pseudogenes are undeniable DNA evidence for evolution (like the enzyme for asorbic acid example in the book). Hugh Ross explains this wonderfully in his book "Who was Adam" although he says he has no answer for this evolutionist argument, yet... Anyway, he describes the argument really well, and I think it is overwhelming support to show that evolution actually happened. Therefore, we have to deal with it rather than close our eyes to the evidence and wish it away. Young earthers don't really discuss it much because they don't have much to say about it. At least Hugh Ross is honest enough to point it out as a good argument, and promises a response in the future.

...Bernie

[Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com]

Hi Dean-

I think you need to listen to more sources than just Ken Ham and young earther's. The Bible says: "A man seems right until another comes along and questions him." I think pseudogenes are undeniable DNA evidence for evolution (like the enzyme for ascorbic acid example in the book). Hugh Ross explains this wonderfully in his book "Who was Adam" (pg. 228) although he says he has no answer for this evolutionist argument, yet... Anyway, he describes the argument really well, and I think it is overwhelming support to show that evolution actually happened. Therefore, we have to deal with it rather than close our eyes to the evidence and wish it away. Young earthers don't really discuss it much because they don't have much to say about it. At least Hugh Ross is honest enough to point it out as a good argument, and promises a response in the future.

...Bernie

[Randy]

You should concentrate on teaching the gospel of the Bible instead of trying to elevate yourself with un-Biblical controversy.

-Randy

[Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com]

Hi Randy-

Evolution does not have to be unbiblical, as you say. People like CS Lewis and other conservative scholars embrace evolution (or are at least open to it) as God's means of design. That is why I'm writing- to open minds. As Eugenie Scott says, it is a "Christian secret" that needs to get out.

...Bernie

[Dean Hartman]

Bernie, Why not ask Ken Ham about Pseudogenes? Why would you accept/believe the theory of evolution when its roots are from man who hated God. By the way Darwin never repented of his sin and never knew Christ. Darwin never aknowledged Christ as Lord/Savior. It is more logical to believe and accept God's version of the beginning. What is even worse you are calling God a liar if you believe evolution because God said he made the earth on the third day and the rest of the celestrial realm was on the fourth day. The earth was present without the moon/stars/sun. What the whole debate comes down to is will people believe God or will they believe man. Only God was present at the time of creation. As I wrote before to you if the first 11 chapters in Genesis can not be taken literally and believed you might as well throw the whole bible out none of it can be believed. Ken Ham says this all the time. How can you believe/trust the rest of the Bible if you cannot believe Genesis account of creation? Why should you believe in Jesus if you cannot believe scripture is the inerrant word of God? It is all or nothing we cannot pick and choose just because we cannot comprehend. How could the rocks cry out and the trees clap their hands if man does not? How can predestination be possible? We must trust God's word in what He said is true. We cannot rationalize or comprehend the ways of God. How can the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit be One. We don't understand the Trinity but it is so because that is what God's word implys. The earth as we know it is about 6000 years old and that is what God's word tells us. Any other theory that man says/teaches is a lie and from the devil. The question is do you believe God or man?

Thanks for the opportunity for us to voice our opinions.

Dean

[Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com]

Hi Dean- I suggest you get the book that I wrote about, called "The Genesis Debate." You have been saturated with one biblical interpretation and haven't heard discussion as to the pro's and con's. As I wrote, there are three interpretations, all from evangelical Christians who consider the Bible to be inerrant.

As for the roots of evolution, Darwin, it makes no difference. Vast amounts of scientific evidence have accumulated since Darwin... an explosion of science in many fields (microbiology, astronomy, geology, etc.). It is my opinion that young earth'ers, like Ken Ham, are refusing much of this evidence and even twisting it to their own ends. The 'expelled' movie is another example of lots of twisting (unholy and unrighteous).

Have you heard there's a crisis in evolution? That seems to me to be another lie. One of the foundational books on that theme is Michael Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis." Behe said that is the book that he read that started his doubts about evolution (Behe is an ID leading advocate). Denton wrote that in 1985. Guess, what, surprise, he's an evolutionist now, and wrote a new book. About last year, my seminary class taught the young earth viewpoint, used this book as a textbook, but never mentioned any changes in Denton's view on evolution, which completely changed from "evolution is impossible" to "evolution happened."

The pseudogene argument is what nailed it for me, as far as showing to me that evolution happened. Since accepting evolution, I learned that many other Christians, especially the intellectuals, are doing the same.

However, my theology was tied heavily to the young earth view, so I'm trying to discover my new theology, and reading those who have traveled the road before me. I'm still in process in determining all the theological ramifications, yet I think it is extremely important to stop putting out a false message of a young earth, which does more to destroy the faith of many, especially of those who are college educated.

Ken Ham may be bringing multitudes to faith with his young earth theology (especially amongst kids), but how many is he losing? How many adults is he losing to his false teachings? That's my opinion, but I'm willing to see other viewpoints... I hope you do the same.

One of my favorite verses on this topic:
“The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.” Proverbs 18:17 (NIV)

Question Ken Ham. Do that by studying alternative theologies with the Christian faith. There's no need to pick one side, and then learn only from them.

...Bernie

[The Angry Republican]

Hello,

Interesting site you have here..!!

I have always wondered why God would keep track of time by earth standards (a 24 hr period)

Earth…

A planet that God hadn't even created yet on the first day.

Maybe man misunderstood God's meaning of "a day."

I believe life can evolve. But evolution cannot explain why only a select group of apes evolved intelligence, and no other ape or creature ever did.

Evolution cannot explain how "it all" started.

It is much easier for me to believe in God, then a "magical mud puddle" bubbling with life. Or a random- chance "big bang from nowhere" creating everything.

It is too complicated to be random.

It is too simple to be chance.

It is God.