Disagreement Doesn’t Require Hostility

Young Earth Creationists take much flak for their interpretation of Genesis, which places the Earth at around 6,000-years-old. John and I firmly believe the best interpretation supports the opposite view, an Old Earth view, clearly displayed in the comment section of Do you hold a literal view of Genesis?

Looking back, I was intolerant of opposing views. My words came off as disrespectful, smug, cheeky, and completely unbecoming of a professing Christian. For this, I apologize.

Sifting Reality welcomes a breadth and diversity of opinion, and as a content contributor, I shall henceforth keep this in mind.

Young Earth Creationism:

Old Earth Creationism:


  1. I think theres a tendency for people on both sides to question the motives of why the other interprets the way they do. Many times we talk past each other and just assume the other guy is being disingenuous. We also tend to believe, I think, that there are far overreaching consequences to getting the interpretation of Gen 1 and 2 wrong.

    In the end we’re on the same team and should keep that in mind.

  2. Aren’t you guys going to weigh in on the Bill Nye-Ken Ham debate?

  3. John ,

    I agree. I’m bothered most by the accusation that OEC are merely twisting the Bible to fit the science. I don’t think we’re doing that at all.

  4. Kendrick,

    I haven’t watched the full debate, but I’ll do so shortly and respond.

  5. Kendrick,

    So I finished watching the debate. Briefly, let me go over a few things.

    Oftentimes, Creation/Intelligent Design proponents stay away from the Bible in such debates. Take Michael J. Behe, Ph.D, for example. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard him mention the Bible in a debate. He stays away from it, I think, so as to give his overall point an err of scientific legitimacy – at least on the surface. Ken Ham, on the other hand, has no qualms about admitting his belief in the Bible as the ultimate authority, which I found refreshing. It’s nice to see a Creation/Intelligent Design proponent admit what everyone already knows.

    Ken Ham made some great points, I admit. He shed light on a number of problems with the methods used to determine the age of the Earth – yet offered no alternative dating method to support his own view. He believes we should just take the Bible’s word for it. And I’m fine with Ham making the case – because unlike Behe, Ham admits it’s not science; it’s religion. It’s faith. I like that.

    Overall, I believe Nye won. I’ve heard better Creationist/Intelligent Design arguments than those offered by Ham. And his incessant preaching was quite offensive to me as an Old Earth creationist. He frequently ridicules mainstream science for their assumptions about the age of the Earth, yet makes assumptions himself about those who disagree with him. He completely misrepresented the argument offered by Old Earth believers like myself. So, I was pretty turned off.

    But I’ll give Ham another chance. I plan to take my family to his Creation Museum. I’d like to see it just because it looks cool.

    Generally, though, Nye won.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: