Ploutos
Puritan Board Sophomore
Friends, it seems to me that many or most objections to a belief in 6 literal days and a young earth rest in a uniformitarian mindset - that we can (and therefore should) extrapolate the laws of physics back to creation based on what we can observe now. If you do away with that assumption, while it doesn't necessarily prove the literal days and young earth view, it does seem to me to remove the "mandate" for alternative explanations of the creation story - whether that's a day-age theory, or a gap theory, or some variant of the framework hypothesis.
But it almost seems too simple. Am I missing something? Are there people who don't hold to a uniformitarian view but still feel as if they must find some alternative explanation for the creation narrative? I've recently read some of Meredith Kline's articles on the topic, and while I admire his creativity and intellect, it really seems to come down to uniformitarianism: our understanding of the Genesis narrative has to be viewed through the lens of what modern science knows to be true not just about the present but about the past. Hence his attempts to rectify science with Scripture are still built on the flawed foundation of scientism. If you take that assumed premise away, it really seems to vitiate the strength of his argument - and likewise for most other non-literal readings of Genesis 1 & 2.
But it almost seems too simple. Am I missing something? Are there people who don't hold to a uniformitarian view but still feel as if they must find some alternative explanation for the creation narrative? I've recently read some of Meredith Kline's articles on the topic, and while I admire his creativity and intellect, it really seems to come down to uniformitarianism: our understanding of the Genesis narrative has to be viewed through the lens of what modern science knows to be true not just about the present but about the past. Hence his attempts to rectify science with Scripture are still built on the flawed foundation of scientism. If you take that assumed premise away, it really seems to vitiate the strength of his argument - and likewise for most other non-literal readings of Genesis 1 & 2.