The Six-Day War in Creationism, by Gene Nouhan

There are several books that seriously criticize Young-Earth Creationism, as it is taught by Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis (AiG), and others. The Six-Day War in Creationism: A New Critique of the Young Earth Reform Movement and Its Excesses is the most thorough such book that I have read. It's also the longest. The length and content of that title gives a hint of that thoroughness, and length. 

Author Gene Nouhan  carefully considers the meaning of the Bible's original languages, and concludes that the Bible wasn't meant to say that the earth is but a few thousand years old, and doesn't. His related main criticism of the Young-Earth Creationism (YEC) movement is that its advocates do not usually explicitly claim that you have to agree with them for your eternal salvation, but that they argue so strongly for a YEC interpretation (never mind the lack of evidence) that the message that comes across is that only YEC believers can be saved.

Nouhan doesn't attempt to rule out a six day creation by examining scientific evidence. Others have done so, explaining that a young earth isn't consistent with geological, biological, or paleological findings. Nouhan's base is the original words in the Bible, as far as we can know them. I am not a scholar of biblical language, but Nouhan seems convincing. He calls upon logic and common sense.

Two other books that I recommend are not as thorough, but seem sound in Biblical scholarship, and make some important points. (Mis)interpreting Genesis: How the Creation Museum Misunderstands the Ancient Near Eastern Context of the Bible, by Ben Stanhope, deflates claims from AiG that the Bible teaches that dinosaurs were contemporary with people in Noah's time, based on his analysis of the language of the Old Testament. Why does AiG make such claims? One possibility is that they genuinely believe that the Bible teaches that. Another possibility is that, as a culture, we are excited by dinosaurs -- see Jurassic Park, etc., the Flintstones, news reports on newly discovered fossils, and many other phenomena -- and that AiG is using this fascination to raise interest, attendance, and money. Stanhope considers archaeology, and some of the sciences, as well as history. An important sample is 

It’s historically outrageous to suppose a global flood ... [is] supposed to have managed to blast out the Grand Canyon in North America and fossilize the dinosaurs in Uzbekistan but couldn’t put a dent in the Sphinx at Giza or other hundreds of Egyptian sites and entire civilizations constructed far earlier and well documented as alive and well through this period. If you accept the calculation that a global flood occurred in 2300 BC, you absurdly end up having to compress or explain away nearly all of the world’s chronological and archaeological evidence dating to before the middle of the Egyptian Old Kingdom period.

The Heresy of Ham: What Every Evangelical Needs to Know About the Creation-Evolution Controversy, by Joel Edmund Anderson, argues that AiG believes, and teaches, that Young-Earth Creationism is one of the foundational beliefs of the church, which belief is a heresy. Here's a quotation from the book:

... heresy is not limited to simply wrong teaching about something. It also can involve undue emphasis of a particular theological point or view, and actually elevate a secondary or non-essential issue to a level of primacy, equal to the resurrection of Christ.

And Anderson (and Nouhan) believe that AiG and those it influences and agrees with have done exactly that.

Nouhan's book is not perfect. There are a few things that the editor missed, such as using "tenant" when "tenet" was what was meant. The acronym SDWC is commonly used, but never expanded. (It means "Six Day War in Creationism," of course. There are hundreds of footnotes. Some of them, to web sources, don't give the UUL but give the site's name (Answers in Genesis, for example) and the date. Some of those sources would be hard to fine. Some footnotes are not to an outside source, but give part of Nouhan's argument. I'm not clear as to why these are not part of the main text. Finally, Nouhan overuses italics. When it doubt, italicize, seems to be his thinking. These are minor flaws, or maybe flaws at all. It's a good book.

Thanks for reading!

The following graphic does not directly relate to this post, but it's my blog. It's impossible to take Genesis 1 and 2 as two straightforward sequential lists of events:

 

Is the science of the Bible always correct? Lamentations 2:11 on the liver

Image of the liver from Wikimedia Commons

Lamentations 2:11 My eyes fail with tears. My heart is troubled. My liver is poured on the earth, because of the destruction of the daughter of my people, because the young children and the infants swoon in the streets of the city. (World English Bible, public domain)

Commentary by A. R. Fausset: "that is, as the liver was thought to be the seat of the passions, "all my feelings are poured out and prostrated for," &c. The "liver," is here put for the bile ("gall," Job 16:13; "bowels," Psa 22:14 ) in a bladder on the surface of the liver, copiously discharged when the passions are agitated." (source)

From Calvin's commentary: "But Jeremiah, in short, shews that all his faculties were so seized with grief, that no part was exempt. He then says that his liver was poured forth, but in the same sense in which he said that his bowels were disturbed. They are indeed hyperbolical expressions; but as to the meaning, Jeremiah simply expresses his feelings; for there is no doubt but that he was incredibly anxious and sorrowful on account of so great a calamity;" (source)

The author of Lamentations was not including the first verse quoted above as part of a discussion of liver anatomy and physiology. If he had been doing so, he would have been largely wrong, as can be seen by reading this solid source on how the liver was perceived in ancient times. The authors of that source, in fact, quote the verse at the beginning of this post, and say, commenting on it, that the liver "... was also the seat of all the emotions..." Or, as Fausset put it in his commentary, the passions.

Was Jeremiah (presumably the author of Lamentations) wrong about the liver? Well, yes, about its significance and function. Was the Bible wrong about the liver? Yes, in the same way. But Lamentations was not a physiology text. God knows the function of the liver, perhaps even knowing aspects of it that are yet to be discovered, here in 2023, and He knew them in Jeremiah's time. The Bible, nor God, is not in error worth mentioning, or defending, concerning this passage. Jeremiah spoke in accord with the beliefs of his day, and those beliefs were not such as to imperil anyone's salvation. These beliefs were incorporated into what he said about the liver. It would have been strange indeed for God to have tapped Jeremiah on the shoulder and said "excuse me, but the liver is not actually the seat of the emotions. Carry on with your prophecy," and, of course, He didn't do that. To expect every Biblical description of created things to match current scientific knowledge is unreasonable.

Thanks for reading. Take care of your liver. 

September 15, 2023:

I have discovered that, in chapter six of his book, (Mis)interpreting Genesis: How the Creation Museum Misunderstands the Ancient Middle Eastern Context of the Bible, Ben Stanhope discusses the brain and the kidneys, in a fashion similar to my treatment of the liver, in this post. God willing, I'll post on these further organs soon.

October 6, 2023: Here is a post on the kidneys, and here is one on the size of mustard seeds. Both posts argue that the Bible was produced according to the beliefs about nature and humans that were prevalent at that time.