food for (science and faith) thought

Posted by in faith

Lately, I’ve seen versions of the following phrases used over and over to describe a particular Christian scholar who has written a bible curriculum for homeschoolers and/or sunday schools:

“twisting scripture to fit a worldview” and
“doesn’t believe the Word of God is inerrant” and

I’m sure that Dr. Peter Enns, author of “Telling God’s Story” didn’t know that he would soon become a household name among the large contingent of Christian homeschoolers in the world, who homeschool using texts from Answers in Genesis or Ken Ham.

I thought it might be interesting to note that Dr. Enns isn’t the first Christian who writes about his belief in an old earth (millions of years old, not thousands of years old), Theistic Evolution and the Big Bang:

Billy Graham, Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, 1997.  p. 72-74:

“I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren’t meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. … whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.”


Chuck Colson, The Big Bang, According to Atheist Sir Fred Hoyle

“Today, advocates of the Big Bang think that their theory is a substitute for God. But it’s just the opposite. Hoyle rejected the Big Bang in spite of the evidence because he knew that the Big Bang pointed irresistibly to the existence of God…

As we read the obituaries about Sir Fred Hoyle, the man who named the Big Bang, we might ask our skeptical neighbors: If there was a Big Bang, isn’t it reasonable to recognize what Hoyle did-that there behind it [is] a Big Brain. And might that not be the God of the Bible and of all creation?”


Hank Hannegraff (Bible Answer Man): “The Creation Story: How Old is the Earth?”

The question of whether the earth is 4.5 billion years old (as modern geology affirms) or roughly 10,000 years old (as some evangelical scientists and theologians are now maintaining) hinges largely on whether the “days” of Genesis chapter one are to be taken as indicating literal 24-hour days or as poetic references to indefinite periods of time. An analysis of the biblical material reveals that the answer to this is not eminently clear, and that some justification can be found for both positions.


Francis Schaeffer, Genesis in Space and Time p. 59:

What does day mean in the days of creation?

The answer must be held with some openness. In Genesis 5:2 we read: “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” As it is clear that Adam and Eve were not created simultaneously, day in Genesis 5:2 does not mean a period of twenty-four hours.

In other places in the Old Testament the Hebrew word day refers to an era, just as it often does in English. See, for example, Isaiah 2:11,12 and 17 for such a usage.

The simple fact is that day in Hebrew (just as in English) is used in three separate senses: to mean (1) twenty-four hours, (2) the period of light during the twenty-four hours, and (3) an indeterminate period of time. Therefore, we must leave open the exact length of time indicated by day in Genesis.