I think this is really helpful as they are acknowledging that Scripture is part of how they come to their conclusions about the age of the earth. This fundamentally much more honest than any claim that it is the “evidence” in nature that so clearly demonstrates the earth is young. Moreover, this opens the door for some more useful conversations. So I would respond:
-
Considering Scripture in questions about the physical world is legitimate. It makes sense for Christians to include Scripture as part of how we make sense of the world, whether or not this is accepted in mainstream science.
-
With this on the table we can ask: If Scripture is evidence and they interpret it as the earth being young, what is the process and rules by which they can question and improve their interpretation of Scripture? Especially if there is an obvious error according to their own hermeneutical rules, how could they correct it? Would they correct it?
-
If they found error in the YEC interpretation of Scripture, according to the rules laid out, would they face repercussions for going public about it? Would they still be willing to correct the error?
I’ve asked these questions to some leading YECs and recieved interesting answers, that I won’t repeat here. What I can say is that according to their own rules of interpretation they usually cannot justify their certainty in a young earth. I think it makes most sense to press on this rather than the science. A few examples:
-
They often teach (literally!) that God made the earth “perfect” when he actually only made it “very good.”
-
They often are fearful of repercussions from other YECs from breaking the line, rather than allowing Scripture to correct the YEC interpretation (and YEC organization often work hard to nurture this fear).
-
They cannot produce good Scriptural evidence (beyond conjecture) against people outside the garden, even though a high proportion of YECs in the pew naturally gravitate to this idea using their own hermeneutic. Taking a literal hermeneutic, the confusion (and even contradiction) is very thick in how they handle Nephilim, and Numbers 13:33.
-
They cannot produce a strong argument why A Telling in Six Ordinary Days is unacceptable, even if it is false in their mind. If it is consistent with Genesis, they should not be able to exclude it.
-
They often argue that Genesis 1 teaches God created everything directly, when literally this i not what it says. Rather, it literally teaches that the “land and sea brought forth plants and animals” of (possibly) “many kinds,” with no reference to “reproducing according to their kind.”
-
Faced with these, I tell them that I trust God’s word over mans word. I’m not subject to their fallible interpretation, and trust Scripture more. I ask them at what point and what way they allow Scripture to correct their fallible interpretation. Several times, in response, hey have said (privately) that if this is what TE was they might not have problem with it.
I could go on. The point is that even under their own hermeneutic (except when it begs the question), they cannot justify certainty in a 6,000 year old earth. Even granting that days are ordinary days, the cannot justify certainty here either.
Privately, some YECs have acknowledged at least some of this is true when they pressed, but publicly they will not say anything. Why? There is a great deal of fear here. That is why it is good to keep reminding them, including publicly, that we trust God’s word over their fallible interpretation. There is no need to challenge their hermeneutic to make this point. Right now, in places like AIG and ICR, there is no way to even discuss mistakes in their interpretation. The doctrinal statements carry more authority than Scripture, and that is where we should focus to see movement on their end.
A couple detours I avoid:
-
Correcting their hermeneutic. That is beside the point, because their own hermeneutic fails.
-
Arguing for the authority of science or man’s word. The issue is that YEC organizations are trying to pass off man’s word as God’s word. We subject to Scripture, not to them.
-
Arguing against concordism or for an old earth, instead of against their unquestioned allegiance to a fallible interpretation.
-
Convincing them to agree with me about the age of the earth or evolution.
In the end, our beliefs about the age of the earth are not ultimately that important. The cultic tendencies in many YEC communities however need to be called into account. Walls do come down as they recognize that their are legitimate positions other than their own.