Josiah Concept Ministries

Mike from Geocreationism.com, in his post on February 13, 2007, has given the following seven points as the founding principles of his viewpoint of creation vs. evolution:

1. Science is accurate.
2. Scripture is accurate.
3. Young Earth Creationism is correct that Genesis 1 is literal and historical.
4. Old Earth Creationism is correct that the earth is old.
5. Gap Theorists are correct that there is a gap in the creation story (it’s Day 4 though, not Genesis 1:1)
6. Day-age Theorists are correct that each day maps to an age.
7. Theistic Evolutionists are correct that God caused mutations and allowed Natural Selection to occur. [source]

This seems to me as though Mike is starting with the assumption that everyone is correct and working on the premise that some sort of middle ground exists between the various viewpoints. That middle ground, which he calls Geocreationism, is the subject of his blog.

The crux of the matter, really, comes to how the reader answers the following question: For all of the competing theories, must someone necessarily be wrong? Obviously, Mike has decided to ride a seven-way fence by deciding that no one has to be wrong. But let’s take a closer look at Mike’s list and see if he is actually on to something.

First, as a student of human nature, I recognize that the order in which someone lists items is extremely important and reveals something about the nature of his underlying premise. For example, when receiving Christmas gifts from my wife’s family, I very well expect that such gifts will be To Jody and Cory. However, Christmas gifts from my side of the family are addressed To Cory and Jody. The reason for this should be obvious. When my side of the family sends a gift addressed first to my wife, I know that it is a gift that, while useful for both of us, is actually intended for her–such as a pastel (more specifically, purple) colored set of towels. And when my name is listed first from her side of the family, likewise–the gift is usually something intended for spiritual development, of which the husband ideally is in charge.

So it is therefore significant to me that Mike lists science first, and Scripture second. The implication, from my perspective, is when science and Scripture meet in a place that has no reconciliation, I expect Mike will side with science. This is borne out by even a casual perusal of the Geocreationism blog, which is heavily pro-evolution. In fact, the site never doubts that humans evolved, however, it teaches that God used evolution as one means of creating the kinds of things He wanted.

This site does not teach Darwinian Evolution, but a variation where God introduces what he [sic] will, and then alternately lets the species tree grow wildly for a time, and then prune [sic] and graft [sic] until it looks like what He wants. He then lets the entire cycle go again, letting it grow, and pruning it back again. Evolution on the other hand is a continuous a process, where Natural Selection goes unchecked; I do not believe God lets nature go unchecked. He reigns it in. Regularly. Forcefully. Actively. Lovingly. In a similar fashion to how He maintains the Olive Tree of faith in Romans 11. That is the model for creation advocated here. [source]

Notice the inherent contradiction of this position already within only one paragraph: “. . . God introduces what he [sic] will, and then alternately lets the species tree grow wildly for a time, and then prune [sic] and graft [sic] until it looks like what He wants.” This is almost immediately followed by “I do not believe God lets nature go unchecked. He reigns it in. Regularly. Forcefully. Actively. Lovingly.”

Science 1, Scripture 0. See, mainstream science believes in natural selection as a process, and in order for Mike to make Scripture fit the science, he has to create a contradictory position where God lets nature take its course, but exercises meticulous sovereignty over it.

God cannot create a rock so big He couldn’t move it, because He can’t create something greater than Himself. He can’t make a square circle, simply because that is impossible to do within the geometric system He created. By allowing for free will, He necessarily allows for rebellion against His cause. Stark contrasts and opposites must exist within an orderly world, and God cannot create something that is defined by its opposite (such as a square circle, a triangle with five sides, or a greater deity than God Himself). This is the significance of separating Light from Darkness on Day One of Creation. The point here is that God cannot, by definition, allow something to propagate wildly by natural selection while also exercising meticulous sovereignty over it. This is logically, scientifically, theologically, and (most importantly) physically impossible.

Now let us examine each of the seven points in greater detail.

Science is Accurate

I don’t know that anyone is necessarily arguing to the contrary, except for some attacks on the underlying assumptions of some of the science that is used in regard to aging the earth.

I would only wonder if some conclusions of scientists could be challenged. Mainstream science doesn’t like it when people argue with their conclusions, but that is precisely what a peer review period is for.

However, one of my arguments against the Christ-myth group is that it always the same modern people (Acharya S, Richard Carrier, etc.) drawing on a theory proposed 1800 years after the time of Christ, an opinion only shared by a minority of discredited scholars (such as Kersey Graves). This group never seems to make any breakthroughs; they always “bastardize” their works using the same sources and never anything up to date. Creation scientists seem to be the same way: always the same names appearing on every single publication, and always from either CMI or AiG.

Maybe the only real challenge that can be offered to science is that the earth is, in fact, older than mainstream science estimates, or the actual age is incalculable.

The very creation account that we are talking about here would provide some evidence to support the second point. God doesn’t create the flow of time, or at least any meaningful way to measure the passage of it, until day 4 (Gen 1:14). This means that, prior to day 4, we had no way to mark the passage of time, and thus, no way to measure how much “duration” preceded this moment.

I, therefore, submit that it is impossible to know the true age of the earth, and by extension the universe itself. This explains why some measures of the age of the universe calculate 9 billion years, while others estimate 15 billion years or older. I’m not doubting the measurements, mind you, just our ability to accurately determine something that Scripture hints we are not able to accurately determine.

Scripture is Accurate

Nothing to argue here. I am a firm believer in biblical inerrancy.

Young Earth Creationism is Correct that Genesis 1 is Literal and Historical

This is a logical extension of point #2, that Scripture is accurate. Genesis 1 lacks the mythological elements of most creation stories. There aren’t deities fighting for supremacy, there are no divinely mandated missions, no prophecies to fulfill. In fact, an atheist friend of mind once said that if he were inventing a religion, this is the last sort of creation account that he would use, since it is so boring!

In fact, Josh McDowell argues in Evidence for Christianity that is precisely this blandness that proves the literalness and the historicity of the Genesis creation account. This account is written in the humdrum style of someone who is simply recording history, with none of the language of a person trying to construct a grand epic adventure story.

Greek creation, with Zeus having to journey below the Underworld to Tartarus to free the Titans, the Cyclopes manufacturing the weapons (Zeus’s thunderbolt, Poseidon’s trident, Hades’s helmet of invisibility, Athena’s bow and sword, etc.), the epic battle between Zeus and his father Cronus for the rule of the entire universe; these elements make a great movie. Something tells me that God speaking everything into existence isn’t going to be the next project that New Line Cinemas options in wake of the ironic combination of Lord of the Rings followed by His Dark Materials.

Old Earth Creationism is Correct that the Earth is Old

I find little to disagree with here. As noted in the previous entry, passage of time was not created until Day Four (Gen 1:14). This means that it is impossible to truly estimate the age of the earth. As a result, I find no inconsistency between Scripture and an old earth. The primary reason that organizations like Answers in Genesis or Creation Ministries International fight so hard for a 6,000 year old earth is that death and destruction, by definition, cannot exist prior to sin. To have millions, or even billions, of years of death, disease, and carnivorous activity prior to the first sin removes the Genesis foundation of the gospel message.

At least that is the position of “mainstream” creation scientists. Recently, I’ve begun diving deeper into that very issue, and I’ve begun to wonder if that is really necessary. It seems that human death is more important than animal death–why animal death is a factor at all is beyond me for they have no will and no soul.

Mike wants to take this one step further. He believes that God breathes a soul into Adam, not life. Thus, by sin spiritual death enters the world, not physical death. Physical death is already present in the Geocreationist model, and has been for millions of years.

Gap Theorists are Correct that There is a Gap in the Creation Story

Most Gap Theorists place a gap in the creation story, between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. They believe that in that time, prior to Adam, is when all of the fossils that we are discovering for which we have no corresponding living creature lived. Shortly after God created the heaven and the earth (verse 1), this would be the time of the trilobites, dinosaurs, and other creatures that, according to paleontologists, lived before man walked this earth. In this gap, they reason, were also the primitive hominids, such as Neanderthals and Homo habilis.

God then destroyed all of this in a global flood followed by a massive ice age. Hence, we now have the Spirit of God hovering above the waters (verse 2). The rest of the story follows.

It’s obvious that we have no Biblical support for such a theory. But Mike places the gap later in the creation account, at Day Four. I have already cited Day Four as the moment that time itself begins. What is so magical about Day Four? Let’s examine it closely:

And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. [Gen 1:14-19]

This passage starts with the creation of lights in the sky, separating day from night and marking the passage of time. Then, the text has God make two great great lights, the sun and the moon. Then, He makes the stars.

The key to the mystical allure of Day Four is that it is the first place in all of this creation account where we can begin to measure time. Prior to this day, there is no way to actually do that. Now, it is here that Mike wants the gap to occur–but we encounter a serious problem.

At this point in the account, God has separated light from dark (Day One), separated heaven from earth (Day Two), created land and ocean and made vegetation grow on it (Day Three). Day Four sees the heavenly bodies–sun, moon, and stars–but we have yet to see any sort of animal life. Placing the gap here doesn’t account for millions of years of fossils–at least not of any animals. Animals see the light of day for the first time in Day Five.

Mike’s answer to this is that to make the oceans teem with life or to assign the birds as the rulers of the sky doesn’t absolutely require an empty earth previous to this declaration, only that now the birds become numerous enough to rule the skies and that ocean life multiplies rapidly. This comes from Genesis 1:20, but verse 21 is going to be a problem for this reasoning.

Verse 21 says that “God created the great sea creatures and every living and moving thing with which the water swarmed, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.” This verse, unfortunately for Mike, is the first time that the author uses the verb “create” other than in the introductery verses 1 and 2. He didn’t just multiply them (verse 20), this is the first time He actually created them.

Day-Age Theorists are Correct that Each Day Maps to an Age

Since I see no inherent Scriptural problems with an old earth, I see nothing wrong with this notion, either. In the creation account, Moses uses the Hebrew word yom, which typically means either a 24-hour day, or sunrise to sunset (as in a Jewish holiday), or an indeterminate period of time (that is, an age). Though the young earth creationists argue that the phraseology “evening came and then morning, and so was the xth day” removes any room for interpreting yom as anything but a 24-hour day, I disagree for two reasons.

First, God does not experience duration in the same way that we do. It is said of Him that a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is but a day (2 Pet 3:8). These are days from God’s point of view, not ours.

Second, I believe that the use of the phrase “evening came and then morning” is to show that overlap of these days is not possible. Otherwise, we will truly lose the significance of the Sabbath day. Mike and I at least agree with that, albeit with very different logic:

Jesus and the Holy Spirit were hovering over the deep, which implies they stayed in one place. Usually, remaining stationary would result in following a certain point of the earth, even as it rotates, experiencing day and night as that location does. However, Jesus wasn’t just creating over one part of the earth… He was creating over the entire thing, and therefore it seems more likely that the entire earth was under His view, therefore rotating past Him as He watched. From such a vantage point, Jesus would not experience sunset or sunrise… at least not until He chose to, allowing a “day” to last billions of years if that be His will. [source]

In finding no attempt to make some of the day-ages overlap, geocreationism as a concept sticks with the Scripture. Therefore, I see no problems with mapping days to ages.

Theistic Evolutionists are Correct that God Caused Mutations and Allowed Natural Selection to Occur

And now we have the largest problem with Mike’s theory of geocreationism: theistic evolution, marrying God–a sovereign deity with an unsearchable purpose in creating mankind–with the purposeless entity of evolution and its counterpart, natural selection. That is a major contradiction in terms. Doing this does not explain anything; it only attempts to add an ultimate purpose to a process that doesn’t have one. Evolutionist comments on this site agree in point:

Anyway, while I’ve been in support of theistic evolution in the past in one form or another, I’m not so sure anymore. At times I feel like it’s merely an attempt to give God something to do; to recognize scientific reality, but we need to make a job for God to do so he [sic] can be involved in the process. In my mind, however, he [sic] either was or was not involved, if there’s no way to tell we simply can’t say one way or another, and many of the attempts I’ve seen to reconcile science with the Bible aren’t violate both science and theology, just a little bit less on either side than saying it’s one or the other. [emphasis added]

Mike, however, has this to say in his defense:

God has a purpose in all He does. So, if He did it, it is not purposeless. There is a general truth we see throughout scripture: the physical points to the spiritual. What God did and does has nothing to do with any physicial [sic] necessity to do it that way. However, I believe that if you understand how and when God **chooses** to interact with His creation, we can glean insight into how He interacts with us.

While I agree with this statement, it leads us far away from the point, which is the same point I made in the introduction to this article: there is an inherent contradiction between letting something go wild but maintaining the claim of meticulous sovereignty over it. The model is Romans 11, and that is what we will examine next.

Romans 11

The seat of Mike’s argument is Romans 11, which he says is the model for God allowing changes to occur on their own without removing his meticulous sovereignty. Unfortunately, this is difficult to reconcile given its proximity to Romans 9, which is the premiere Bible passage teaching election/predestination and the Calvinist view of soteriology. The ultimate passage in meticulous sovereignty would never be placed right next to the ultimate passage for letting things go and coming back later to see how they worked out. Paul wrote the to the Romans his masterwork letter, and he plotted its structure far too carefully to let two such contradictory notions slide in side-by-side.

There is a way to reconcile these points with each other, and for that we need not go any further than our own logic.

Paul meant the tree he talks about in Romans 11 to be a metaphor. As such, the real thing referenced need not take on all of the characteristics of the metaphor. When I, for example, say that someone is “quick as the sunrise,” I am drawing a comparison between the speed at which the sunrise occurs and the speed that someone is either performing a specific task or the speed at which they got my last joke. We’ve all seen how long a sunrise lasts, we all know that my jokes are so dry they are practically brittle, and we all know that sometimes one has to think my jokes through since I’m very often not on the same page as anyone else in the room, so we all know that I mean that the person so described is not very quick on the uptake.

For this simile to work, the person need not execute nuclear fusion within their bodies to give off enough light and heat to sustain their own planetary systems.

A further example would be my earlier statement that my jokes are so dry that they are brittle. I’m referring to the general description of sarcasm and puns as “dry” humor. I tend to inject much more sarcasm into my jokes, and my humor tends further toward irony than most. Therefore, I can make the statement that my jokes are “so dry that they are brittle.”

For the metaphor to work, my jokes need not drain all of the saliva out of a person’s mouth, nor must they actually break easily when handled. Jokes, as abstract notions, can neither be handled nor tasted, so “dry” and “brittle” are therefore understood in a figurative sense.

One final example. When I state that “we are on the same page,” and I refer to the example above when I’m with a group of people and we are talking, that is understood to mean that we understand each other. We need no physical book present for that statement to work.

So, what does all this mean for Romans 11? Well, the tree that is spoken of would be God’s elect–the church, if you don’t believe in the Reformed position. Holding, as I do, to the Calvinist soteriology, I do not believe that the tree “grows” and God prunes it in response to its growth. Nothing in the text would indicate that to me. Rather, God sustains the tree and it grows in response to His pruning. Now, there is a subtle difference. Obviously, in real life, one would expect the former to take place. But, since this is a metaphor, and we have shown that in order for a metaphor to be fully understood it need not take on all of the characteristics of the thing to which it is compared, we conclude that the reverse takes place in light of Romans 9 and other passages that tell us that God grows His church, in His time, in His way.

This means that I do not endorse the alleged “Biblical precedent” on which Geocreationism is founded.

Conclusion

Geocreationism is a very well-thought out idea. It is, in fact, one of the best attempts to reconcile Scripture with science. However, since I cannot endorse the biblical foundation that Mike finds in Romans 11, nor can I swallow the idea of a gap, I must conclude that it falls short of being the right answer to the origins dilemma.

Overall, I think that too many competing theories are being reconciled using just this one.

Finally, I think my friend Brain from Laelaps said it the best, and I offer this as my conclusion:

. . . [E]stablishing correlation between a particular verse and a scientific fact does not prove causation or show us the “mind of God” as the “natural theologians” (i.e. Paley, Buckland, etc.) of centuries past tried to do. You might be right, you might be wrong, but it seems to me that there are far more inconsistancies between science and the Bible than there are things in common. Perhaps that is why God is not considered in scientific studies; as you say, if we’re dealing with a deity that could’ve done things “any way He wanted” then we’re dealing with motivation of a supernatural being that we do not have access to and that is beyond scientific testing, so it is more an issue of philosophy/theology than science. It might work on a personal level, but overall I think it’s fairly weak. (source, emphasis added)