As I was developing an answer to one of the comments (the original comment have sadly been lost) left for the Are You Evolutionized?… post, I realized that it had become to detailed to relegate to the lowly comments area. An excerpt from the original comments is as follows:

Isn’t the age of the earth really at the heart of this argument? of course if the earth is young evolution is out the window. and I’m not as comfortable as you are labeling the universe as ancient.

Without scientific information available to every Joe-Blow in 2007, one would never assume an old universe from literal scripture reading. My charge still stands completely unmolested to my mind, that this is not exegesis from the scripture but rather addition to the scripture to make it sync with other pieces of information, which are supposed to be subservient to the scripture. with the Genesis account using the 7 day time-line and using terms like morning and night, it is at loggerheads with an old universe. and I cant figure it out.

First of all, we have to be careful with making “literal reading” the only litmus test for proper exegesis. It is certainly a critical factor, but so are historical and cultural matters, and perhaps on equal footing with the “literal (simple)” reading of Scripture is genre. For instance, if the genre of Genesis were “science book” then I would have more concern with what the original audience were able to understand about the creation account versus what we can understand. After all, what it meant is what is means. But science is not the genre of Genesis, and the first two chapters of the book were not written to give us a detailed account of every aspect of creation. As mentioned above, the primary theological principles that should be gleaned from Genesis 1 and 2 are a) God created everything, and b) it was good.

Finally, it is very interesting to note that historically, the issue of old versus young earth was a non-issue until following WWI when Fundamentalist began to fear the effects of evolutionary teaching upon society. Note that they were not worried about an old earth, but rather their primary concern was thwarting the power of evolution. Their fears eventually led to a strict adherence to Young Earth Theology because this view basically removes the possibility of evolution. However, as Ratzsch points out, this was not the original position of the Fundamentalist.

“Thus none of the early fundamentalist leaders rejected science’s claims that the earth was vastly old, although they differed concerning the reconciliation of science with Scripture…Dixon, Torrey, C. I. Scofield (of Scofield Reference Bible fame) and…Harry Rimmer, all held gap theories. Virtually none of the early fundamentalist leaders took the flood to be geologically significant…”

My reason for bringing Fundamentalists into the discussion is simply because of their historical place as movers and shakers in outlining “orthodox” Christian beliefs in America. In other words, the conservatives conservative, were not concerned with the age of the Earth until they began to squirm under the influence of evolution, and needed to find a way to protect against it.

“I have no way of knowing how long the world was created before man was created. The Bible does not tell. It only says, ‘In the beginning’ and that afterwards He created the plants and animals, and last of all man. But it gives no intimation how long the earth was created before these other things were.”–David Lipscomb, 1921

“There is no statement in the Bible which indicates the age of the earth…If the scientist or pseudoscientist want to ascribe to the earth an age of a million, a billion, or three hundred billion years, I will not pause to argue…’In the beginning God.’ That is all the Bible affirms on the question.” Foy E. Wallace, 1946

There have been, and continue to be many possible ways to mesh a literal interpretation of Genesis’ seven days with an old earth. The problem is not that this cannot be conceived, but rather that in so doing we open the gates, as it were, to evolutionary possibility, and that is something we simply can’t afford to do!

During a recent episode of the Fellowship And Frivolity podcast (no longer available), Bill asked a series of questions originally put together by David Wright which are supposed to let those who answer them know if they have been “evolutionized” by “bad science” and naturalism. Bill and Terry did not provide a link, and I have been unable to find one using Google so I cannot pass it on to you.

First of all let me say, many of these questions are loaded heavier than a LongHorn Steakhouse baked potato. Here are the questions along with my answers and a few observations.

1. Are tribes in South American rain forest more primitive forms of humans than we are? No
2. Did dinosaurs live before humans? Yes. This does not indicate my belief in evolution, but rather in an Old Earth Theology that coincides with a literal interpretation of Genesis.
3. Were the people who lived in caves, and used simple tools unintelligent? No. Still, humans have learned more about the universe around us since Adam started working in the Garden of Eden. We make progress in medicine, agriculture, technology, science, etc. So it would be possible to answer this question with a yes, and still not indicate a belief in evolution.
4. Did Noah lack special tools or equipment to build the ark? No. Again, he obviously had what he needed, but he also didn’t have power tools or a Lowe’s store to help him out. This is just a stupid question.
5. Are the stars older than the earth? Yes. This does not indicate my belief in evolution, but rather in an Old Earth Theology that coincides with a literal interpretation of Genesis.
6. Is there more than one race? No. If there ever was a “trick question” this is one. Many people would answer yes to this question in regard to the ethnic separation of races (black, white, Hispanic, Latin, etc) but still hold that all of these “races” descended from one original human race.
7. Does it take millions of years to form fossils, oil, coal, and diamonds? Yes. This does not indicate my belief in evolution, but rather in an Old Earth Theology that coincides with a literal interpretation of Genesis.
8. Did Adam have to learn how to speak, read and write after he was created? Yes and no: how in the name of all that is holy could we possibly answer this question completely. Certainly Adam communed with God and this indicates speech, but it does NOT necessitate writing and reading. We can trace the, dare I say it, evolution of written language throughout history by looking first at the primitive symbol based writing and finally at the phonetically developed alphabets mankind uses today.

What these questions show more than anything is the simplistic approach to the evolution/creation debate that many creationists take. It is interesting to note that historically, even the fundamentalist Christians did not take issue with an old earth theology. As with many things “fundamental” these ideas grew out of a fear that science would corrupt Christianity and leave us a society of godless men and women.

I certainly believe we have such a society, but I would make two points about it. First, mankind has been a godless society since he left the Garden of Eden. This is not a new situation brought about by evil naturalistic scientists. And secondly, to whatever degree it is possible to curb this evil side of humanity, we would have been (and still would be) better served to approach debates such as this one using sensible, well developed arguments rather than parlor tricks, and closed minded ignorance.

I have quoted and mentioned it a few times before, but a great place to begin your journey into a more developed approach to this dialog is The battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side Is Winning the Creation-Evolution, by Del Ratzsch. Del is a Christian, but his objective in this book is not to defend creation or evolution, but to point out first the history of both sides, and then the errors found in the common arguments presented by both sides. Ratzsch does not provide you with the answers, but rather asks all the right questions and leaves you questioning if your approach to the debate is the best one available. I’m currently working through this book for the second time, and I can’t recommend it enough.