Is the Earth 6,000 or Billions of Years Old
Review and Comment
Disclaimer: I was the leader of a local Chapter of Reasons To Believe and a ministry supporter for many years.
Last time, I mentioned that there is a difference between a discussion and a debate in a public setting. While a discussion expects to contribute to the depth and breadth of knowledge on an issue, the expectation in a debate is that of a winner and loser. A debate occurred on August 27 between Kent Hovind and Dr. Fazale “Fuz” Rana. Hovind is a creation science evangelist based in Alabama. Rana is a biochemist and President of Reasons To Believe from California. The debate was hosted and moderated by Jennifer Bagnaschi, founder of Deep Believer, a ministry based in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
There were similarities between the participants. Both men hold to the truthfulness of the Bible. Each one affirmed the historicity of the Genesis 1 creation account. Hovind and Rana agreed that Adam and Eve were historical persons and were the source of sin’s impact on humanity.
The differences between Hovind and Dr. Rana were immediate and apparent. They were not merely a difference in interpretation.
Fuz Rana and his organization, Reasons To Believe, hold to the day-age view of creation. In this view, the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years old and the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The word for “day” in Genesis 1-2 is the Hebrew word “yom,” which has several different meanings, one of which is a long but finite period of time. Three different meanings of “yom” are used in the Genesis 1-2 creation account. Reasons To Believe accepts that there was animal death before the Fall, but humans only began to die as a result of the Fall of Genesis 3.
Kent Hovind is well-known for his belief in young-earth creationism. In this view, God created the universe approximately 6,000 years ago in six 24-hour days. God created a perfect world, therefore, there was no animal death before the Fall of man. He cites Exodus 20:11 as Biblical support for his view, making a direct equivalency between the days of creation with the work week expected of man while honoring the Sabbath as a day of rest at the end of that work week. The genealogies of Genesis 4, Hovind asserts, can be constructed to give an approximate date of the age of the earth.
The debate was mostly an introduction to the views of both men. The two-hour session was an exchange of statements and rebuttals.
Comment
This debate was not merely an explication of differing points of view and interpretations.
Kent Hovind asserted that Christians who believe in long ages are not merely wrong but are “brainwashed.” At four points, he accused Rana and old-earth adherents of “heresy” although he does not seem to know the actual meaning of the word. He also attempted falsely several times to paint Rana and RTB as being theistic evolutionists. His interpretation of God’s creation of a perfect world and Adam being created with a super-high IQ to name the animals in one day is not supported by any Scripture whatsoever. One statement that Hovind made was that “God’s Word is the judge, not majority opinion.” But he also wanted to give Genesis 1 and 2 to 5,000 people to ascertain if they would agree with the young-earth position, making a majority opinion.
Fuz Rana lost an opportunity to center his presentation on the understanding of God’s general and special revelation. That would have been most helpful in making the audience understand that God has given us both revelations. When Hovind also said that no Hebrew scholar agrees with the interpretation of yom in Genesis 1-2, Rana responded rightly with two Hebrew language scholars, Gleason Archer and Walter Kaiser, who were old-earth creationists.
A discussion seeks open expansion of knowledge even if the views expressed by the participants differ. A debate seeks a winner and a loser. One participant seemed to seek discussion and the other sought victory. If that was the case, neither man gained their objective.
Mark Riser - Apologist 