正文
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_Creationism#Young_Earth_creationist_ideas
Young Earth creationism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Young Earth Creationism)
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of the series on
Creationism
History of creationism
Creation in Genesis
Genesis as an allegory
Types of creationism:
Creation science
Gap Creationism
Hindu creationism
Intelligent design
Islamic creationism
Jewish creationism
Modern geocentrism
Neo-Creationism
Omphalos creationism
Old Earth creationism
Progressive creationism
Theistic evolution
Young Earth creationism
Controversy:
Creation vs. evolution
... in public education
Associated articles
Teach the Controversy
Adam and Eve, the first human beings according to Genesis.Young Earth creationism is a religious doctrine which teaches that the Earth and life on Earth were created by a direct action of God relatively recently (about 6,000 years ago). It is held by Christians and Jews who believe that the Hebrew text of Genesis can only mean a literal six (24-Hour) day account of creation, that evidence for a strictly factual interpretation of the text is present in the world today, and that scientific evidence does not support Darwinian evolution or geological uniformitarianism.
Many of its adherents are active in the development of Creation Science, a creationist endeavor that holds that the events associated with supernatural creation can be evidenced and modeled through an interpretation of the scientific method. There is no support for a "young Earth" theory in professional science journals or among professional science organizations[1], which Young Earth Creationists claim is often due to discrimination and censorship. [1][2] [3] [4]
Contents [hide]
1 History
1.1 Decline
1.2 Revival
2 Characteristics
3 Young Earth creationist ideas
3.1 Teaching of Genesis
4 Young Earth creationism and other forms of creationism
5 Young Earth creationism and the Omphalos hypothesis
6 Criticisms of Young Earth creationism
6.1 Theological
7 References
8 See also
9 External links
9.1 Young Earth Videos
9.2 Articles
[edit] History
Some young earth creationists claim that this view has its earliest roots in Judaism, citing for example, the commentary on Genesis by Ibn Ezra (c. 1089–1164), who believed the Genesis days were 24 hour periods.[5] The first-century Jewish historian Josephus may also have accepted a six-day creation and a young Earth. Dr. Shai Cherry of Vanderbilt University points out in his Introduction to Judaism class that Jews traditionally have not viewed the creation "day" ("yom") of Genesis as a solar day. Philo of Alexandria also indicates that the days were considered to be other than solar days. Although the Reformation hermeneutic inclined some of the Reformers and later Protestants toward an ordinary day, younger-earth view, the majority of the early Church Fathers including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine, Eusebius, and Basil did not believe the Genesis account depicted ordinary solar days.
For much of the history of Christianity, the majority viewpoint in the absence of scientific evidence to contradict it was that the universe was made by a rational Creator; this viewpoint was held by many of the founders of modern science, such as Copernicus, Kepler, Faraday, Galileo, Maxwell, Newton, Boyle, Pascal and Nicolas Steno. However, the development of scientific methods of enquiry, and the discovery that geological strata and fossil sequences provided no evidence for a universal deluge soon produced a decline in the scientific belief in Young Earth Creationism.
[edit] Decline
Support for Young Earth creationism declined from the 18th century onwards with the development of the new science of geology. It appeared to early geologists that the Earth had to be ancient to account for the range of geological phenomena that were observable. James Hutton, now regarded as the father of modern geology, opened up the concept of deep time for scientific inquiry. Rather than accepting that the earth was no more than a few thousand years old, he maintained that the Earth must be much older (indeed, he asserted that the Earth was infinitely old). Hutton stated that:
the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle.
['Theory of the Earth', a paper (with the same title of his 1795 book) communicated to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and published in Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1785; cited with approval in Holmes, A., Principles of Physical Geology, 2nd edition, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pp. 43–44, 1965.]
Hutton's main line of argument was that the tremendous displacements and changes he was seeing did not happen in a short period of time by means of catastrophe, but that the incremental processes of uplift and erosion happening on the Earth in the present day had caused them. As these processes were very gradual, the Earth needed to be ancient, in order to allow time for the changes to occur. Before long, scientific inquiries building upon his claims had pushed back the age of the earth into the millions of years — still much younger than commonly accepted by modern scientists, but a great change from the literalist view of an Earth that was only a few thousand years old.
Hutton's ideas, called uniformitarianism, or Gradualism were popularized by Sir Charles Lyell in the early 19th century. The energetic advocacy of Lyell led to the public and scientific communities largely accepting an ancient Earth. This philosophy governed the interpretation of geological data by the Reverends William Buckland, Adam Sedgwick and other early geologists. By mid-century, mainstream science had abandoned Young Earth creationism as a serious hypothesis. Many religious groups also abandoned Young Earth creationism as a literal deion of the Earth's history and came to regard the Biblical account of creation in Genesis as purely allegorical or mythological.
As of 1997, an estimated 95% of US citizens with degrees in science reject the idea of a young earth. [6]. Among those scientists who work in fields related to geology, the percentage of those rejecting the idea of a young earth is even higher.
[edit] Revival
The rise of fundamentalist Christianity at the start of the 20th century saw a revival of interest in Young Earth creationism, as a part of their rejection of the explanation of evolution. In 1923, George McCready Price, a Seventh-day Adventist and amateur geologist, wrote The New Geology to provide an explicitly fundamentalist perspective on geology. The book was partly inspired by the book Patriarchs and Prophets in which Seventh-day Adventist prophetess Ellen G. White described the impact of the Great flood on the shape of the earth. Harry Rimmer was another prominent exponent of similar views, at least during some of his evangelizing career (Rimmer appears to have also subscribed to "gap creationism", and a local flood, at least at some times).
Price's work was adapted and updated by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb Jr. in their book The Genesis Flood in 1961. Morris and Whitcomb argued that the Earth was geologically recent and that the Great Flood had laid down most of the geological strata in the space of a single year, reviving pre-Uniformitarian arguments. Given this history, they argued, "the last refuge of the case for evolution immediately vanishes away, and the record of the rocks becomes a tremendous witness... to the holiness and justice and power of the living God of Creation!"
This became the foundation of a new generation of Young Earth creationist thinkers, who organized themselves around Morris' Institute for Creation Research. Sister organizations such as the Creation Research Society have sought to re-interpret geological formations within a Young Earth creationist viewpoint. Langdon Gilkey writes,
... no distinction is made between scientific theories on the one hand and philosophical or religious theories on the other, between scientific questions and the sorts of questions religious beliefs seek to answer... It is, therefore, no surprise that in their theological works, as opposed to their creation science writings, creationists regard evolution and all other theories associated with it, as the intellectual source for and intellectual justification of everything that is to them evil and destructive in modern society. For them all that is spiritually healthy and creative has been for a century or more under attack by "that most complex of godless movements spawned by the pervasive and powerful system of evolutionary uniformitarianism", "If the system of flood geology can be established on a sound scientific basis... then the entire evolutionary cosmology, at least in its present neo-Darwinian form, will collapse. This in turn would mean that every anti-Christian system and movement (communism, racism, humanism, libertarianism, behaviorism, and all the rest) would be deprived of their pseudo-intellectual foundation", "It [evolution] has served effectively as the pseudo-scientific basis of atheism, agnosticism, socialism, fascism, and numerous faulty and dangerous philosophies over the past century"
(Gilkey, 1998, p. 35; quotations from Henry Morris).
Morris' ideas had a considerable impact on creationism and fundamentalist Christianity. Armed with the backing of conservative organizations and individuals, his brand of "creation science" was widely promoted throughout the United States and overseas, with his books being translated into at least ten different languages.
In 1978, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy developed the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy which included the following:
WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of ure on creation and the flood. [7]
The revival of Young Earth creationism has had no significant impact on modern science — creation science is regarded as pseudoscience by mainstream scientists. However, it has had a significant impact on science education, almost exclusively in the United States, where periodic controversies have raged over the appropriateness of teaching Young Earth creationist doctrine and creation science in public schools (see Teach the Controversy).
Young Earth creationism has also failed to make much of an impact outside of fundamentalist Protestant denominations. Virtually all other Christian denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church, reject the concept of Young Earth creationism. Many Bible scholars reject the fundamentalist approach to taking Genesis literally. Young Earth creationists disagree.
[edit] Characteristics
Young Earth Creationists (YECs) comprise mainly Orthodox Jews and Christians who interpret the creation account of Genesis as historically accurate, factually correct, and in most cases, strictly inerrant. Analogously, those Muslims who might be described as YECs regard the account of creation in the Qur'an in the same way.
The defining characteristic of this belief is that the Earth is "young", on the order of 6,000 to 10,000 years old, rather than the age of 4.5 billion years estimated by a variety of scientific methods including radiometric dating. Some YECs derive their range of figures using the ages given in the genealogies and other dates in the Bible, similar to the process used by James Ussher (1581–1656), Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland, when he dated creation at 4004 BC. Ussher's chronology, published in 1650, has been subsequently revised many times, most recently in 2003 by Larry and Marion Pierce. YECs believe that life was created by God 'each after their kind' in the universe's first six normal-length (24-hour) days. Additionally, they believe that the Biblical account of Noah's flood is historically true, maintaining that there was a worldwide flood (circa 2349 BC) that destroyed all terrestrial life except that which was saved on Noah's Ark. Barry Setterfield proposed in 1999 that the flood occurred much earlier around 3536 BC.
Young Earth creationism is normally characterized as opposing evolution, though it also opposes many claims and theories in the fields of geology, astronomy, cosmology, molecular biology, genomics, linguistics and any other fields of science that have developed theories or made claims incompatible with the Young Earth version of world history. YECs are fundamentally opposed to any explanation for the origins of anything which replaces God as the universal creator as reported in the Bible, whether it be the origins of biological diversity, the origins of life or the origins of the universe itself. This has led some YECs to criticize intelligent design, a proposal which some see as an alternative form of creationism, for not taking a stand on the age of the Earth, special creation, or even the identity of the designer. Some YECs see this as too compromising.
Young Earth creationists challenge philosophical naturalism and uniformitarianism as the dominant principles of the mainstream scientific community, and assert instead that the physical evidence today best supports original catastrophism and the Young Earth creationist viewpoint. See Creation-evolution controversy for a more complete discussion.
[edit] Young Earth creationist ideas
Young Earth creationists regard the Bible as both a mandatory moral guide and a historically accurate, factually inerrant record of natural history. They accept its authority as the central organizing text for human life -- the sole indisputable source of knowledge on every topic, from the physical workings of the universe to the purpose of a man's existence. As Henry Morris, a leading Young Earth creationist, explained it, Christians who flirt with less-than-literal readings of biblical texts are also flirting with theological disaster. For the vast majority of Young Earth creationists, an allegorical reading of the Genesis accounts of Creation, the Fall, the Deluge, and the Tower of Babel would undermine core Christian doctrines like the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see "The Gospels-evidence for creation"). According to Morris, Christians must "either ... believe God's Word all the way, or not at all." Therefore, YECs take the account of Genesis to be a historical account of the origin of the Earth and life. The corollary is that many YECs regard Christians who do not regard Genesis as historically accurate as being inconsistent Christians who subscribe instead to a philosophy that they regard as close to atheism.
[edit] Teaching of Genesis
The text of Genesis relates that God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh. God also planted the Garden of Eden for the habitation of Adam and Eve. As a result of the subsequent Fall of Man, Genesis reports that humanity was forced to work hard to provide food, childbirth became painful, and physical death entered the world. The population imbalance that such ideas suggest that before the Fall animals would eventually exceed the carrying capacity of the earth, is not considered a problem by YECs since they believe that the earth did not remain in its unfallen state for any (generationally) appreciable time.
The Genealogies of Genesis record the line of descent from Adam to Noah to Abraham, with the ages at which they had the next in line and the ages at which they died. According to the account, God sent a global flood 1656 years after Adam. Some Young Earth Creationists assert that the Flood was a combination of radical geological activity (the opening of the "fountains of the great deep") and extreme rainfall (from "windows in the firmament of heaven"). Others claim that in accordance with Genesis the "firmament" was a barrier of frozen water that melted causing the universal flood. The problems in finding sufficient water to cover Mount Everest is countered by some YECs, who claim that the land before the flood lay much lower than it does now, but that extreme geological action during the Flood raised mountains to new heights and dropped the sea-bed, so that the water that had covered the land flowed into the sea. Still others claim giant water-spouts during deluge flung the water into outerspace, forming the inner solar system comets. Yet other Young Earth Creationists sometimes refer to a loosely codified idea called "Flood geology" to argue that the vast majority of present-day geological features are the result of the Great Flood. YECs further argue that anthropological evidence has shown that every culture studied has, in its history, a story similar to that of Noah in two aspects: 1) the existence of a catastrophic flood and 2) human and animal life saved by a man who built a large boat and placed enough life to repopulate the earth after the flood was over on it for the duration of the Great Flood. According to Genisis, two of every "unclean" kind of animal (male and female) and seven of every "clean" kind of animal were placed on the ark during the flood.
After the flood, Genesis reports increasingly short lifespans dropping quickly from an average of 900 years at the time of Noah to an average of 100 by the time of Abraham. Some Young Earth Creationists have suggested that this is due to effects associated with inbreeding that took place after the flood, as only eight people remained. [8] However, Adam and Eve's children would also have had to inbreed, there being no other humans on earth. Another theory suggests that the Earth had a higher concentration of oxygen prior to the Flood, possibly due to a layer of water vapor ("vapor canopy") above the Earth, even pointing out that rainbows apparently did not exist before the Flood. The result of such a postulation would be a giant Hyperbaric Chamber, extending lifespans. Yet others hypothesize that the "firmament" of the "waters above" screened the Earth from harmful ultraviolet rays, which they argue, shortens life expectancy. YECs also assert that all modern species of land vertebrates are descended from those original animals on the ark. Most YECs believe that the Ark "kinds" diversified as they subsequently adapted to their environments by the process of variation and rapid natural selection. The selection of such animals as kangaroo and koalas on the ark is based upon hypothesized sunken land bridges between Australia and South East Asia, over which Noah or his sons, or the ancestors of the animals themselves, could travel. Many YECs assert that the process of variation and natural selection resulted in a net loss of genetic information.
Subsequent genealogies in the text identify individuals named Egypt, Gomer, Sheba, Canaan, and Sidon, who are said to have founded the cities and civilizations that were later to bear their names.
Young Earth creationists do not deny the existence of dinosaurs and other extinct animals present in the fossil record. They assert, instead, that fossilized extinct creatures represent the remains of animals which perished in the Great Flood, and that Noah took dinosaurs within him in his Ark and they became extinct at some other point in time, like other animals such as the dodo. The newly-established Creation Museum in Kentucky portrays humans and dinosaurs co-existing before the Flood — one exhibit even portrays a saddled triceratops [9]. For many years, YECs referred to supposed associated human and dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy Riverbed of Glen Rose, Texas as proof of coexistence, though most now have abandoned this man track controversy as careful scrutiny of the claims have shown them to be either fabrications or spurious phenomena. Some creationists assert that living dinosaurs (as well as other extinct creatures such as plesiosaurs) still survive in isolated spots, accounting for alleged sightings of lake or sea monsters.[10] Other creationists urge caution about alleged plesiosaurs living today, since rotting basking sharks can form a pseudo-plesiosaur shape.[11] Creationists sometimes turn to cryptozoology to support the idea that creatures known from fossils lived alongside humans in historical times.
[edit] Young Earth creationism and other forms of creationism
Young Earth is only one of several forms of creationism; others include Old Earth creationism and Day-Age Creationism. Young Earth creationists reject these alternatives based on textual and theological grounds. In addition, Young Earth creationists claim the scientific data in geology, astronomy, etc. point to a young earth which the scientific community consensus views as an errant view.
Young Earth creationists generally hold that when Genesis describes the creation of the Earth occurring over a period of days, this indicates normal-length 24 hour days, and cannot reasonably be interpreted otherwise. They agree that the Hebrew word for "day" (yôm) can refer to either a 24-hour day or a long or unspecified time, but argue that whenever the latter interpretation is used it includes a preposition defining the long or unspecified period. In the specific context of Genesis 1, since the days are both numbered and are referred to as "evening and morning", this can mean only normal-length days. Further, they argue that the 24-hour day is the only interpretation that makes sense of the Sabbath command in Exodus 20:8–11. YECs argue that it is a glaring exegetical fallacy to take a meaning from one context (yom referring to a long period of time in Genesis 1) and apply it to a completely different one (yom referring to normal-length days in Exodus 20). [12]
Further, Young Earth creationists argue that their position is the only way to explain the Fall, which introduced death and suffering into the world. They argue that all long-age views entail death before sin, which they regard as a severe theological error, violating Genesis 3, and for Christians, Romans 5:12–19, 8:17–22 and 1 Corinthians 15:21–22.[13]. Further discussion and refutation of these objections can be found on the Day-Age Creationism page.
[edit] Young Earth creationism and the Omphalos hypothesis
Many Young Earth Creationists distinguish their own hypotheses from the Omphalos hypothesis, today more commonly referred to as the apparent age concept, put forth by the science writer Philip Henry Gosse. Gosse's hypothesis was an unsuccessful mid-19th century attempt to reconcile creationism with geology. He proposed that just as Adam had a navel (omphalos is Greek for navel), evidence of a gestation he never experienced, so also the Earth was created ex nihilo complete with evidence of a prehistoric past that never actually occurred. Gosse's hypothesis allows for a young Earth without giving rise to any predictions that would contradict scientific findings of an old Earth. This was rejected at the time by scientists on the grounds that it was completely unfalsifiable and theologians because it implied a deceitful God, which was theologically unacceptable.
Most YECs today argue that Adam did not have a navel [14], and in contrast to Gosse, posit that not only is the Earth young but the scientific data supports that view. However, the apparent age concept is still used in young earth creationist literature[15][16][17].
[edit] Criticisms of Young Earth creationism
The theory of Pangaea conflicts with the theory of a young earth.Young Earth creationism was abandoned as a mainstream scientific concept more than 150 years ago. While many mainstream scientists accept it as a faith position, they contend that it is little more than that and regard attempts to prove it scientifically as being little more than religiously motivated pseudoscience. In 1997, a poll by the Gallup organization showed that 5% of US scientists believed in creationism; however, not all creationists are YECs. Some subscribe to Old Earth creationism, which posits an act of creation that took place millions or billions of years ago.
Over the past century and a half, many scientific disciplines have found evidence which conflicts with many Young Earth creationist claims. This includes findings from geology, paleontology, biology, molecular biology, dendrochronology, genomics, physical anthropology, astronomy, physics and archaeology, amongst other sciences.
Critics argue that every challenge to evolution by Young Earth creationists is interpreted in an unscientific fashion or is readily explainable by mainstream science, or that while a gap in scientific knowledge may exist now it is likely to be closed through further research. While mainstream scientists acknowledge that there are indeed a number of gaps in the mainstream scientific theory, they generally reject the creationist viewpoint that these gaps represent insurmountable flaws with evolution. Those working in the field who pointed out the gaps in the first place have often explicitly rejected the creationist interpretation. The "God of the gaps" viewpoint has also been criticized by theologians, although creationists claim that their models are based on what is known, not on gaps in knowledge.
Christian Young Earth creationists adhere strongly to the concept of Biblical inerrancy, which declares the Bible to be divinely inspired and therefore scientifically infallible and non-correctable. This position is considered by devotees and critics alike to be incompatible with the principles of scientific objectivity. The creationist organizations Answers in Genesis (AiG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) require all members to pledge support for Biblical inerrancy.
Young Earth creationists often suggest that supporters of evolution theory are primarily motivated by atheism. Critics reject this claim by pointing out that many supporters of evolutionary theory are in fact religious believers, and that major religious groups such as the Roman Catholic Church and Church of England believe that the concept of biological evolution does not imply a rejection of the ures. Nor do they support the specific doctrines of biblical inerrancy proposed by Young Earth Creationism. Critics also like to point out how workers in fields related to evolutionary biology are not required to sign statements of (non-)belief comparable to the Biblical inerrancy pledges required by ICR and AiG (although many creationism believers insist that scientists operate on an a priori disbelief in Biblical principles.) [18]. Young Earth Creationists too, discount Christian faith positions, like those of French Jesuit priest, geologist and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin who saw that his work with evolutionary sciences actually confirmed and inspired his faith in the cosmic Christ. Nor do they believe the views of Fr. Thomas Berry, Catholic priest, cultural historian and eco-theologian, that the cosmological 13 billion year "Universe Story" provides all faiths and all traditions a single account by which the divine has made its presence in the world.
Proponents of YEC are regularly accused of quote mining, the dishonest practice of isolating passages from academic texts that appear to support their claims while deliberately excluding context and conclusions to the contrary [19]. The creationist side responds that they simply make legitimate use of "hostile witness" evidence when they dispute evolution theory with contradictory quotations from the evolutionists themselves. They also assert that critics routinely attack YEC positions with far more egregious misuse of passages from the Bible.
[edit] Theological
Some theologians oppose the proposition that God can be a legitimate or viable subject for scientific experimentation, and reject a literal interpretation of Genesis. They propose there are statements in the creation week itself which render the historical interpretation of Genesis incompatible with known science.
One example is that God created the Earth and heavens, and light, on Day 1, plant life on Day 3, and the sun and moon on Day 4. One must ask where the light in Day 1 came from, and why there were plants in Day 3, if the sun, which provides all light to the Earth, did not even exist until Day 4. Young Earth creationists such as Basil the Great and John Calvin long ago answered this by suggesting that the light created by God on Day 1 was the light source. Answers in Genesis has refined this by suggesting that the earth was already rotating with respect to this light. [20] One can also make a case that God created the plants toward the evening of Day 3, the Sun was created on the morning of Day 4, therefore the plants only had to endure darkness for a period not much longer than a typical night.
Another problem is the fact that distant galaxies can be seen. If the universe did not exist until 10,000 years ago, then light from anything farther than 10,000 light-years would not have time to reach us. Some creationists attempt to equate this with the horizon problem, however these problems are quite different. Most mainstream cosmologists accept an inflation model as the likely explanation for the horizon problem. Inflationary models also account for other phenomena, and are in agreement with observations of recent microwave anisotropy satellites. Creationists have also proposed models to explain why we see distant starlight. [21], [22] See creationist cosmologies for more information.
Many critics claim that Genesis itself is internally inconsistent on the question of whether man was created before the animals (Genesis 2:19) or after the animals as stated in Genesis 1. Proponents of the Documentary hypothesis suggest that Genesis 1 was a litany from the "Priestly" source (possibly from an early Jewish liturgy) while Genesis 2 was assembled from older "Jawhist" material, holding that for both stories to be a single account, Adam would have to name all the animals, and God would have to create Eve from his rib as a suitable mate, all within a single 24 hour period. Many creationists attribute this view to misunderstanding having arisen from poor translation of the tenses in Genesis 2 in contemporary translations of the Bible (e.g. compare "planted" and "had planted" in KJV and NIV).
Some Christians assert that the Bible is free from error only in religious and moral matters, and that where scientific questions are concerned, the Bible should not be read literally. This position is held by a number of major denominations. For instance, in a publication entitled The Gift of ure [23], published in October 2005, the Catholic Church of England and Wales comments that "We should not expect to find in ure full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision". The Bible is held to be true in passages relating to human salvation, but "We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters." However, that view of the inerrancy of ure was rejected by Paul VI in the formulation of Dei Verbum 11 forcing the commission to adjust the wording and add crucial footnotes to keep it in line with prior teaching. The relator then said that it was not to be understood as limiting biblical inerrancy to only matters of salvation. However that view has since become predominant due to the deliberate decision to interpret it in a heterodox manner regardless of what it was truly asserting. [24] By contrast, Young Earth creationists contend that moral and spiritual matters in the Bible are intimately connected with its historical accuracy; in their view, the Bible stands or falls as a single indivisible block of knowledge. [25]
Theologians have also taken the stance, (an early example of this would be Augustine of Hippo and Galileo) where the problem between "science" and the Bible is merely one of interpretation. Since the creator of the universe is held to be the creator of the Bible, these theologians hold that there should be no contradiction between the two; and if there is, it is only on the part of the interpreter. In this view, parts of the bible should be taken metaphorically, since they were never meant to be interpreted as literal in the first place. Science in this view would be a useful tool, as it would show the proper way to interpret ures that are unclear.
Aside from the theological objections voiced by other Christians, Young Earth creationism also stands in opposition to the creationist mythologies of other religions (both extant and extinct). Many of these make claims regarding the origin of the universe and humanity that are completely incompatible with those of Christian creationists (and with one another).
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.
