Several weeks back I posted about that that deny even the possibility of an interpretation of observations that conforms with a ~6000 year old universe. In the comments I said that it was arrogant and unscientific to hold such a position (which, I want to add for clarity’s sake, is not the same as saying it is unscientific to believe in an old universe).

Since then, there was a discussion with some folks at church on the issue. I argued that we should interpret our observations of the natural world in light of what is revealed in Scripture. No exegetical arguments have convinced me that the creation days are not ordinary, 24 hour days that we observe today. I am open to being wrong, but it would have to be an exegetical argument to convince me. Most arguments for other interpretations begin with an old age, and then come to the text figuring out how (or if) it can be read to fit with that.

One friend brought up geocentricism, arguing that some texts (he mentioned Psalm 19) shape the interpretation of the our observation of the Sun incorrectly. According to this text, the Sun moves around the earth. Thus, we do shape our interpretation of some texts by our observations.

But, there are several problems with this. First, the text does not require a geocentric reading anymore than our every day use of ’sunrise’ and ’sunset’ do. We know the Sun doesn’t move around earth, and yet we still talk about it moving. It seems like special pleading (from the opposing side) to handle the text this way, saying it teaches a geocentric cosmology. Second, geocentricism is not based on Scripture. The Medieval Church did not hold to a geocentric galaxy because of Scripture… it was because Aristotle did. It was the popular scientific cosmological understanding of the time.

My friend concluded that if, at some point in the future, it was determined that the earth was, in fact, billions of years old, his faith would not be damaged. I replied that such a determination is impossible (barring the possibility of time travel, which another friend suggested), but if it weren’t, and what he said happened, then it would damage the trustworthiness of Scripture. He seemed to be shocked by this. But if the topic were the resurrection, I don’t think any Christian would be troubled. If it were proven that Jesus did not in fact rise up again after three days… where would we be left? We couldn’t trust what the Bible says without seriously twisting it.

Which leads to my conclusion. Being a YEC [1], I do interpret our observations of the natural world in light of Scripture, which I believe to teach a young universe. Opponents may argue that what I’m actually doing is twisting the evidence. It’s pejorative, but I can accept it so long as it is acknowledged that the only possibilities are to twist our interpretation of evidence, or twist our interpretation of the text of Scripture.

Which will it be?

[1]I accept the Young Earth Creationist category for simplicity’s sake. When it comes down to it, I deny the earth is young… it is at least six thousand years old!