Is the Universe only 6000 years old? How Did God Create? | Rev. Michael Fredericks

Our series is called what Christians

believe as we talk about what Christians

believe. What are our uh theological

underpinnings of our faith and do we

have graphics?

We should

>> there it all right cool. what Christians

believe. And today we are in the third

week and the title of the message is in

the beginning.

So buckle up. This sermon is a going to

be long and b going to be controversial.

Um

all right,

we're talking about the doctrine of

creation.

the doctrine of creation.

Now, why is this controversial?

It's controversial because

while every Christian believes that God

created the universe, that's we all

agree on that. There is not agreement on

how God did it.

the variety there is a variety of

opinions among Christians amongst

Christian authors, pastors, scholars um

and I know that there are a variety of

opinions even in this room.

So an very important a very important

point to start us off is this that not

how

that not how this is what matters most.

Okay, that God is the creator is what

matters most, not how he did it. We

talked last uh week about uh closedhand

and openhanded issues. Okay, some things

that are non-negotiables, those are the

closedhand things and other things that

are up for debate and we can still call

each other brothers and sisters in

Christ and disagree lovingly and those

are the open-handed things. So in the

case of the doctrine of creation that

God created the universe is a closedhand

issue. We don't disagree on that. That's

foundational.

The open-handed part is the how,

right? The method that God used, the

timeline that God used, that's the how.

Um the uh the the CBAC, our our

denomination, our our doctrinal

statement has one sentence about

creation. And it says God is the

creator, preserver and sovereign of the

universe.

That's all it says. So the views on the

how of creation are not a test of

fellowship within our denomination. Uh

the apostles creed which unites

believers across the world for has for

generations centuries uh simply states I

believe in God the father almighty

creator of heaven and earth. That's it.

So we are united in the belief that God

is the creator.

There are some other points of agreement

as well. Um for example, most Christians

uh agree that uh God created exhils

out of nothing. That's a pretty much a

universal Christian belief. God didn't

take matter or particles or things that

were already in existence from who knows

how or when or from who and reformulate

them into creation. No, he created out

of nothing. There was nothing and then

God created and there was something. So

that's pretty much an accepted Christian

belief. There's also pretty much

universal agreement that the Trinity uh

was involved in the act of creation. We

talked about that last Sunday. All three

persons of the trinity played a role and

pretty much all Christians agree that

the creation is inherently good. Right?

When you read uh and we are going to

read in Genesis 1 where God creates and

every day he says it was good. It was

good. It was good. And uh we believe in

the goodness of the physical universe.

Some religious groups uh teach that the

material world is not intrinsically

good. They might say it's evil or at

least inferior to the spiritual realm.

So like gnostic religions, neoplatanism,

some strands of Hinduism and Buddhism uh

would teach these sorts of things and

that the goal is ultimately to detach

from the material world because the

material world is not good and you need

to achieve a higher uh reality and

escape the cycle of reincarnation or

whatever it is. Um, and we say, "No, in

fact, God calls creation good to the

point that our future hope as Christians

is a physical reality, right? Bodily

resurrection into a new Jerusalem,

heaven on earth, which is a physical and

spiritual reality together. So, creation

is inherently good. We agree on this."

So, that's some stuff we agree on.

All right. Should we go home now?

But what I I do want to spend most of

our time on this morning is looking at

some of the differing views on the how

of creation. And we're going to look

we're going to treat each position

fairly. Look at the pros and cons of

each perspective. And I think it's good

for us to think about these things and

debate these things and and wrestle with

them because I think it's important for

our Christian witness to understand and

articulate well our beliefs around the

origin of the universe.

And we may come away from this message

with differing conclusions, but in the

end what matters is that we love one

another despite disagreement and that

our faith and trust in God is rock

solid. Amen.

>> Amen.

>> Amen. Good. All right, so we're all on

the same page.

Let's turn to the same page of Genesis

Genesis 1 · chapter mention

chapter 1.

I'm going to read the whole chapter and

a little bit of the second chapter. And

uh this is the the creation of the world

as told in the first chapter of Genesis,

by the way. Oh, hopefully this is on the

other side. Oh, good. Okay, we need to

turn this around.

I should have instructed my assistants

more clearly. All right.

What I have here on the whiteboard is a

little diagram that kind of um gives

some structure to Genesis chapter 1 to

Genesis 1 · chapter mention

the creation story. Okay. So, what we're

going to see here is when we get to the

six days or the seven days of creation,

but the six days that God created

things, you're going to see the first

three days where God creates spaces,

habitats,

and the second three days, four, five,

and six, where God fills those habitats

with inhabitants. So, there's a really

intentional uh structure to how this

story is told. Um in verse two you'll

see that that it says that the

everything was formless and empty was

without form and empty. And so in the

first three days he creates the forms

and in the second three days God fills.

Okay. So he undoes what was the reality

in verse two in the six days of

creation. Really cool a kind of poetic

structure to Genesis 1. So it says in

the beginning God created the heavens

and the earth. The earth was without

form and void, and darkness was over the

face of the deep, and the spirit of God

was hovering over the face of the

waters.

And God said, now we're on to day one,

let there be light, and there was light.

And God saw that the light was good. And

God separated the light from the

darkness. God called the light day and

the darkness he called night and there

was evening and there was morning the

first day. Verse six takes us to day

two. And God said, "Let there be an

expanse in the midst of the waters and

let it separate the waters from the

waters." What's that about? Well, in in

the ancient Hebrew worldview, okay, they

under they thought which we know is not

quite scientifically accurate that there

was water above the atmosphere that you

know might some king James calls it the

firmament or something, right? The idea

that there was the water below and the

waters above above the sky is more

water. Okay. Um and so that's what

they're thinking is that this water was

separated uh from the bottom to the top

and that created sky. Okay? So let there

be an expanse that's the sky in the

midst of the waters and let it separate

the waters from the waters. And God made

the expanse and separated the waters

that were under the expanse from the

waters that were above the expanse. And

it was so. And God called the expanse

heaven or sky. And there was evening and

there was morning, the second day. Okay.

Day three, God said, "Let the waters

under the heaven be gathered together

into one place, and let the dry land

appear." And it was so. God called the

dry land earth. And the waters that were

gathered together, he called seas, and

God saw that it was good. And God said,

"Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants

yielding seed and fruits, fruit trees

bearing fruit in which is their seed,

each according to its kind on the

earth." And it was so. The earth brought

forth vegetation, plants yielding seed

according to their own kinds, and trees

bearing fruit in which is their seed,

each according to its kind. And God saw

that it was good. And there was evening,

and there was morning, the third day. So

day three, dry land and plants. Now he

begins to fill these habitats that he

created. Verse 14,

day four. And God said, "Let there be

lights in the expanse of the heavens to

separate the day from the night.

And let them be for signs and for

seasons and for days and years. And let

them be lights in the expanse of the

heavens to give light upon the earth."

And it was so. And God made the two

great lights, the greater light to rule

the day, that's the sun, and the lesser

light to rule the night, that's the

moon, and the stars. And God set them in

the expanse of the heavens to give light

on the earth, to rule over the day and

over the night, and to separate the

light from the darkness. And God saw

that it was good. And there was evening,

and there was morning, the fourth day.

Verse 20. And God said, "Let the waters

swarm with swarms of living creatures,

and let birds fly above the earth across

the expanse of the heavens." So God

created the great sea creatures, and

every living creature that moves with

which the waters swarm according to

their kinds, and every winged bird

according to its kind. And God saw that

it was good. And God blessed them,

saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and

fill the waters and the seas, and let

the birds multiply on the earth." And

there was evening and there was morning,

the fifth day. So you see, he created

the sea and the sky on day two. And on

day five he fills it, the sea with fish

and the sky with birds.

Okay. Day six,

verse 24. And God said, "Let the earth

bring forth living creatures according

to their kinds, livestock and creeping

things, and beasts of the earth

according to their kinds." And it was

so. And God made the beasts of the earth

according to their kinds, and the

livestock according to their kinds, and

everything that creeps on the ground

according to its kind. And God saw that

it was good. Then God said, "Let us make

man in our image, after our likeness,

and let them have dominion over the fish

of the sea, and over the birds of the

heavens, and over the livestock, and

over all the earth, and over every

creeping thing that creeps on the

earth." So God created man in his own

image. In the image of God, he created

him. Male and female he created them.

That's next Sunday's message about being

made in the image of God. And God

blessed them. And God said to them, "Be

fruitful and multiply and fill the earth

and subdue it and have dominion over the

fish of the sea and over the birds and

the things that creep on the earth and

so on." And God said, "Behold, verse 29,

I have given you every plant yielding

sea that is on the face of all the earth

and every tree you could have for food.

verse 30 to every beast of the earth and

to every bird of the heavens and to

everything that creeps on the earth and

so on and every plant I've given for

food and it was so and God saw

everything that he had made and behold

and it was very good and there was

evening and there was morning the sixth

day.

All right. And then the seventh day, the

start of chapter 2. Thus the heavens and

the earth were finished and all the host

of them. And on the seventh day God

finished his work that he had done and

he rested on the seventh day from all

his work that he had done. So God

blessed the seventh day and made it holy

because on it God rested from all his

work that he had done in creation.

Amen. May God add his blessing to the

reading of his word.

All right. So this is the uh biblical

account of creation. And actually

there's another account of creation in

chapter 2 if we were to keep reading

which is a different account. It it

tells the story in a different way. Um,

and it focuses more on Adam and Eve and

the Garden of Eden and all that part of

the story.

Now, what do we do with these stories?

That's the question. What do we do with

these stories? Are these true stories?

Are they literal stories? Are they

telling us how God created the world or

are they telling us something else?

So when we wrestle with that question

and we wrestle with science, it gets us

to sort of three main categories or

camps amongst Christianity as ways to

understand the how of what God did. So

the first camp you could say is young

earth creationism.

The second is old earth creationism and

the third is evolutionary creationism

also known sometimes as theistic

evolution.

So let's start with we're going to work

through each of these categories

starting with young earth creationism.

What does this view say? Well, basically

the idea here is that God spoke and

created the universe just as the Bible

says, just as we just read uh about

6,000 maybe up to 10,000 years ago when

you trace back through the genealogies

of the Bible and and uh the timing comes

from a guy named Bishop Usher who in the

1600s uh sat down and worked his way

through all of the names of the the

genealogies of the Bible. So and so

begat so and so and so and so begat so

and so and he lived so many years and

they lived so many years. And when he

traced it all the way back to Adam, he

found that God uh started creating the

universe on October 23rd, 44 BC at 900

a.m.

>> Very spec a little overconfident maybe.

Um but seriously, this is what Bishop

Usher determined. Now, so you take that

back 404 BC, that's just that's just

over 6,000 years. Um, now some young

earth creationists are a little more

generous with the timeline and they'll

say it could be as much as 10,000 years

old, but not more than 10,000 years for

the age of the earth. So, that's young

earth creationism. Um, the classic uh

creationist example is the is the watch

analogy. Have you ever heard this? So,

imagine that you're walking along on a

trail and you come across a watch on the

ground. And so, you pick up this watch

and you look at this watch and you look

at the inside and all the cogs and

everything and how this thing works. And

the natural conclusion when you look at

a watch that is clearly intricate and

it's functioning and it's incredibly

carefully designed is that there must

have been a designer there. There must

have been a watchmaker who at some point

created this watch. And young earth

creationists say yes. Exactly. And we

all, by the way, we all say amen to

that, right? Yes. We look at the world

and we go, of course, there had to be a

designer. There had to be intelligence

behind this. The young earth creationist

says, "Yes, of course, we know exactly

how the watch maker made that watch. He

sat down in his workshop and he made

that watch." uh aka God created the

world exactly as Genesis 1 says that he

did.

So what do we do with Genesis 1? Uh we

the the young earth creationist says

this is literal history.

Six literal 24-hour days less than

10,000 years ago uh is how God what we

read in Genesis 1 is exactly how God did

it. It's the eyewitness account of what

happened. And then the question that the

first question that most people say,

well, what about the geological record?

Because when you look at the the uh

layers of rock in the earth, the

geologists have determined that the

earth is so many billions of years old.

So how is it possible that the earth can

appear so old if it was less than 10,000

years old? And so there's two um main

arguments for explaining the appearance

of age in the earth. And that is the

first one is that God created the world

with the appearance of age. Um and uh

you look at for example Adam right Adam

when God created Adam in the account he

doesn't create a baby Adam uh he he

doesn't create an embryo Adam he creates

a grown-up Adam and a grown-up Eve. And

so the idea is God created a grown-up

earth that has the appearance of age.

Now why did God did that to confuse us?

I'm not sure. Um but none that's that's

one of the ideas. Another idea is called

flood geology and that's the concept

that when uh Noah's flood happened that

was literally a global flood with

massive amounts of water and that

massive amount of water uh caused huge

tectonic shifts and layers upon layers

coming down upon themselves very

rapidly. And so the things that appear

to be laid down over millions and

billions of years were actually laid

down almost instantaneously by a whole

lot of water. So that's the other way

that uh young earth creationists explain

the u appearance of age of the

geological record.

Now what are the strength? By the way in

all of these views I'm only giving like

a very summarized short version. Um, you

could probably spend two hours on each

of these views to to do them justice.

So, keep that in mind

as you might come to me afterwards and

say, "But you didn't mention this and

you didn't mention that and you didn't

mention this." Yeah, I know. I don't

have time for all that. Um, strengths of

this view. Well, biblical and

theological consistency, right? That

this is a this is the easiest view to

hold in terms of just straight up how

the Bible reads. Okay? uh it can be

understood through a literal reading of

the text takes the account literally. Um

the New Testament also relies on these

stories in Genesis as well when it talks

about salvation and what the salvation

means and sin and the reality of the

fallenness of our world especially Adam

and Eve in that story. So it's all

theologically um important and young

earth creationism is the sort of

simplest way easiest way to process all

of that.

Let's talk about who holds this view.

So, um, this is typically, you know,

there's some some organizations like

Christian, uh, or Creation Ministries

International that holds these views.

Answers in Genesis, guys like Ken Ham,

you may have heard of him. He's the guy

that built a big giant uh, Noah's Ark, a

museum in Kentucky, where you can go and

have the ark encounter and walk through

that and and and and get the whole young

earth creationist framework for history.

Many evangelical pastors and teachers

believe this. roughly onethird of

American adults in some sur surveys uh

believe in the a young earth creationist

viewpoint. I don't know about Canadian

statistics. I suspect it's less than

one/3 in Canada. Uh if you're my age or

older and you've been around church for

a while, especially like a conservative

Baptist evangelical church, this is

probably what you were taught at some

point.

Now, what are some challenges with this

view? Well, the main challenges come in

terms of the scientific world. Okay. So,

young earth creationism relies on

creation science which is rejected by

the vast majority of mainstream

practicing scientists in the world. The

overwhelming majority of experts in the

fields of geology, physics, chemistry,

astrophysics, biology, archaeology, and

anthropology all disagree with the

conclusions of creation scientists,

young earth creation scientists. Uh the

near consensus in the scientific and

academic community is that the universe

is actually about 14 billion years old,

that the earth is about 4.5 billion

years old, and that all living things

evolved over the course of of the last

3.8 billion years from a common

ancestor.

Scientists have seemingly endless

problems with what they call the

pseudocience of creationism.

Now, Young Earth creationists refute uh

those claims and they do have some

credible scientists working with them,

PhD people. Um but nonetheless, the

science thing is a real issue.

Okay,

there's young earth creationism in a

nutshell. How about old earth

creationism?

So old earth creationists

uh still have some doubts about

evolution as the process by which life

came about or they might have

alternative views of the evolutionary

process than what mainstream science

would say. Perhaps that God was involved

in the process certain points

miraculously intervening and creating uh

things as time went along. We'll talk

about that. But they accept the

scientific consensus on the age of the

earth and figure that there must be an

alternative understanding of the

scriptures rather than 6 24-hour days 6

to 10,000 years ago.

So what do they do with Genesis 1 then?

So there's two main approaches to

dealing with Genesis 1 if you are an old

earth creationist. The first one is the

gap theory. And that's the idea that

between verse one of Genesis chapter 1

Genesis 1 · chapter mention

and verse two of Genesis chapter 1,

Genesis 1 · chapter mention

there is a big gap of time that we don't

know about. Right? So in the beginning,

God created the heavens and the earth.

And then

billions of years pass, God does all

sorts of stuff. Maybe in that window is

is when God creates angels and and and

there's the fall of Satan and all these

things that the Bible doesn't really

tell us about. could be in that time

period when the dinosaurs roamed the

earth and all this other stuff that we

know happened at some point in human

history. Um

um and uh and so there's a sort of

thought that maybe that all happened

before Genesis

Genesis 1:2

1:2

uh and then in uh Genesis chap maybe

something God was displeased with it or

something kind of destroyed it all uh

and then started fresh in uh starting in

verse two it says the earth was formless

and void and then uh he created

recreated it in a way that's one theory

basically if you're looking at the watch

anal analogy. Okay. You find this watch

and you pick it up and you go, "This

watch looks really old." Like really

old. And yeah, it looks really old

because it was made of really really old

parts and and at some point that watch

really really old watch got destroyed

and the watch maker came and reassembled

it. Uh a new watch with old parts and

that's why it looks old. That's the gap

theory. A gap between verse 1 and two of

Genesis 1.

Then there's the day age theory. This

one is more common. This is um a very

common view amongst Christians that each

of these days of creation, the six days

were not literal 24-hour days, but uh

perhaps symbolic of a long span of time.

So maybe each day was millions of years.

um each day may maybe is a geological

era of the of the earth's history or

something like that. Um it's like God

made the watch. The watchmaker made the

watch, but he took a really long time to

do it for some reason. Um he it's sort

of like, you know, when you have a

project at home that if you could just

focus, you could get that thing done in

a couple of days, but it ends up taking

you two or three years. You know, that's

how God made the world. He he just took

his time. He wasn't in a hurry for some

reason or another. And so yeah, that

watch is really old, but it be because

he started a really long time ago,

14 billion years ago.

So that's not a belief necessarily in

evolution, but just that God was in no

hurry when he created and he

miraculously creates something and then

waits a few million years to create the

next thing and so on.

Now, the strengths of the day age theory

in old earth creationism is that it's

able to reconcile an old earth without

getting into major theological problems.

Um, for example, in this view, Adam and

Eve are still literally the first two

humans who literally lived in a garden

of Eden, who literally committed the

first sin, and that that whole story is

a true historical fact. It gets around

some of the scientific objections that

uh and has a and still has a

conservative approach to the scripture.

So who holds this view? Who holds this

sort of young old earth uh view of

creationism? Well, there's a lot of

variety of views within this camp. So

it's really hard to pin this down to say

this person is and this person is. But

folks who might fit somewhere in this uh

worldview include people that you might

have heard of like John Piper, I think

Hannah Graph, Hugh Ross, Lee Strobble

who wrote the case for Christ. Uh John

Lennox who is uh Oxford University,

brilliant man who's written a lot about

this. Many Bible scholars, great

teachers of the faith, even early church

fathers like St. Augustine. Uh prominent

evangelical preachers of the past like

BB Warfield, Francis Schaefer and Billy

Graham. You ever heard of him?

uh and several leaders of the movement

that produced the famous Chicago

statement on the inherency of the Bible,

the inherency of the Bible 1978. So the

people who say we believe the Bible is

inherent, infallible, the word of God, a

lot of those leaders said and we also

believe that the earth is actually old

and uh and not a young earth view. So a

lot of different uh a lot of people

there that uh hold to that. Now,

challenges with this view, there are

some

um it's not, for example, a plain

reading of the text in Genesis. When you

read that when when we read that text in

Genesis, it really does read like seven

24-hour days, right? It's like there was

evening and there was morning, the first

day. It's almost like it's intentionally

telling us this was one day and not an

an extended period of time. So, it's a

bit of a stretch textually to say that

maybe each day was more than 24 hours.

And also, the gap theory is the literal

definition of reading into the Bible

something that isn't there, right? Which

we're not supposed to do, but it says,

let's just imagine that between these

two verses, there was actually a whole

bunch of other stuff. Um, so that's all

speculative.

It uh so textually it's a bit of a

stretch. It also doesn't answer all the

scientific challenges such as the

scientific evidence for evolution.

So

that leads us to a third perspective

which is sometimes called theistic

evolution also we're going to call it

evolutionary creationism because we need

to understand that this view is still a

creationist viewpoint.

So the brief explanation of evolutionary

creationism is the idea that those who

hold this view that mainstream science

and God and Christian faith and biblical

uh and and the Bible text are not at

odds with one another. rather that God

is the creator and sustainer of the

universe who initiated it about 14

billion years ago, set it all in motion,

and that evolution is the best

scientific explanation we currently have

for life on Earth as we see it today.

So the back to the watch analogy. Okay,

so we've seen a few different ways to

understand the watch so far.

This way of understanding the existence

of this watch is to say that yeah the

watch maker made the watch but

indirectly the watch maker designed and

built and initiated the most incredible

self-mated fully functioning watchmaking

machine

that eventually resulted in this

remarkable watch exactly as he intended

it to be.

which I think if you hold that view is

no less miraculous than God speaking

something into existence.

So

what does that do with Genesis 1 and 2?

Well, it it approaches the text

differently than the other views. It

takes this text and understands it in

the context of ancient Neareastern

literature of that time period. And they

would argue that that text is not meant

to be taken literally.

Yes, it's the word of God. Yes, it's

true. Yes, it's inspired. But the God

who inspired it and the author who wrote

it, whether that was Moses or whoever,

never intended for it to be taken as a

statement of true historical narrative

and certainly not as a scientific

textbook.

So they would say maybe there's

something else going on here with these

ancient stories and what they mean.

Maybe these were not necessarily written

as modern scientific or journalistic

history but as ancient theological

literature communicating profound truth

but not necessarily literal truth.

What we're getting at with to this with

this is the question when these stories

were told and written down, what was the

author trying to communicate? What was

the authoral intent? That's really

important. By the way, when you read the

Bible, any text that you're reading, you

need to ask what was the author trying

to communicate? What was the actual

intent of the author?

And even though it appears to be giving

us the how, maybe it's actually

communicating something else.

A way of uh illustrating this is uh

let's say you walk into a room, no watch

this time, but you walk into the room

and there's a it's a kitchen and there's

a stove and on the stove top is a is a

boiling kettle of water and you say,

"Why is that water boiling?"

Why is that water boiling?

Well, you could say that water is

boiling because it reached a temperature

of 100° C. That's why the water is

boiling. That's the scientific answer to

that question. Why is the water boiling?

Because it was heated up to 100° C. You

could also answer it this way. Why is

that water boiling? That water is

boiling because I'm going to have some

tea and sit down with a book and spend

some time reading with my tea.

It's not a scientific answer, but it

it's it's still answering the question,

but in a completely different way. It's

it's the purpose answer.

So, this perspective of how you deal

with the text of Genesis 1 and 2 says

that Genesis in these early chapters is

not trying to answer scientific

questions.

It's giving theological answers to the

question of creation. It's telling us

about the nature of God and his

relationship to creation. It's showing

us who God is in contrast to the false

gods of the ancient neareastern world

that surrounded the people of Israel.

Those neighboring peoples all had their

own creation stories,

right, that are very similar in

structure actually to Genesis 1. You can

read the epic of Gilgamesh, for example,

which comes from that around the same

time uh in a in a neighboring culture

that has a lot of similarities. It's

poetic in form. This one we've noted

already has a sort of poetic format to

it,

but in but the content of the Genesis

account is unique from all the other uh

surrounding nations creation stories and

is told in a way to communicate the

truth about God.

So according to this view, the

evolutionary creationist view, uh it's

not attempting, Genesis 1 and 2 are not

attempting to tell us scientifically or

even historically how God created. It's

answering a different question.

So what are the strengths of this view?

Well, this view does not see creation

and evolution as opponents. does not see

the Bible and mainstream science as

opponents.

I'll tell you what, many Christians

approach this topic of creation and

evolution

uh as sort of thinking that these two

ideas are diametrically opposed to each

other, right? Um

I'm going draw some arrows here. They're

shooting arrows across at each other.

Pick your side.

What? What is it? Creation or evolution?

And you'll hear um people like Ken Ham

who the young earth creationist guy

answers in Genesis Guy. He will say

things like, and I've heard him say this

statement in one shape or another many

times, you can't be a Christian and

believe in evolution at the same time.

That's what he'll say. So that's that

viewpoint of creation and evolution are

opposed to each other. Or you'll have

people atheists like Richard Dawkins,

remember him? Uh he would say things

like similarly to Ken Ham, you can't be

an evolutionist and believe in God at

the same time. And so these they kind of

put each other put them as uh as against

each other. You got to choose your side.

But the one of the strengths of this

evolutionary creationist view is it's

sort of a peacemaker between the two.

It says you don't have to choose a side

in this debate. Uh evolutionary

creation. It's peace. Peace man.

Peace, love, and understanding man.

It's a bridge builder between the two

views.

So, who holds this view? Who holds this

view? You've got people like Francis S.

Collins. Uh, I've talked about him

before. Really, a guy who I really

admire, uh, brilliant scientist in the

United States. Uh, Greg Boyd, Tim

Keller, a lot of you have heard of him.

Uh, Entright. I know we got a big

Entright fan over here. one of the most

brilliant. He's an Anglican Bible

scholar. Uh Scott Mcnite, Adam Hamilton,

Michael Bird, Alistair McGrath, others.

Now, what are the challenges with this

view? Well, there are a few challenges,

but one thing in particular that it

raises um in terms of important

theological questions really is around

Adam and Eve. Were Adam and Eve real

historical figures? Or were they

archetypes or symbols of early humanity?

And if that's true, if they were only

archetypes or symbols of early humanity,

what does that mean theologically?

Evolutionary creationists still affirm a

theological reality of sin, though they

differ on how to understand Adam's role

historically. And those are questions

that need answers. It's a really

important question and that's a

challenge with this view.

All right. Hopefully I've done justice

to all three.

As you can see, there's a lot of varying

opinions on this. a lot of varying

opinions

amongst, you know, wellrespected Bible

teachers and scholars, people, you know,

almost all of these categories and

people that I've mentioned are people

that I would listen to and respect and

and and admire and um and but they have

different views.

So, you might be wondering, well,

pastor, just tell us what's your view?

What do you believe?

Well, it's a bit of a long story

and I'm going to tell you the long

story.

Um, my journey with this started when I

was a kid, maybe about 12 years old. Um,

I was visiting a friend whose family

went to an independent fundamentalist

Baptist church across the street from my

house. Uh, they had broken off from our

church sometime before because I guess

we weren't conservative enough for them,

even though we were really conservative.

Okay. Um

uh and and I went to his house one day

and his uh his folks uh said, "You

should watch this video, Michael." So

they put on a VHS tape of a guy named

Kent Hovind, right? He called himself

Dr. Dino. And Kent Hovind was a young

earth creationist. I had never really

thought much at all about this question

before. I'd grown up in the church,

never really had done anything thinking

about creationism and my view on it. Um,

but I watched this video and he was

giving argument after argument after

argument why you should be a young earth

creationist

and I was mesmerized. And so I asked

them, "Can you make copies of these

tapes for me?" They said, "Yes." And so

they gave me copies of these VHS tapes,

three or four of them. And uh, and I

watched those. I took them home and I

watched them over and over again. I

think I still have them stored away

somewhere with my VHS tape collection.

Um, and I became a convinced young earth

creationist.

Um, interestingly, uh, Kent Hovind after

that spent some time in prison for tax

crimes. Um,

but he's out now and he's doing his Dr.

Dino thing again on YouTube. So, like

and subscribe, hit the bell. But he's

not the best spokesman, I would say, for

young earth creationism. Um,

nevertheless, these tapes set me on a

path towards disproving evolution at

every chance I had. I got a subscription

to Creation Magazine. Uh, I every chance

in high school when the English teacher

would say, "All right, we're going to

have a debate in class," I would say,

"Oh, teacher, please can I please argue

for young earth creationism?" And we'll

have a debate, creation versus

evolution. And they would go, "Okay,

Michael. Sure." And uh and I so I

remember two or three times I would do

this thing in class. Everyone would roll

their eyes, I'm sure. Um went off to

university to St. X. I organized a Young

Earth presentation on campus. We filled

a lecture hall. We had a guest speaker

come. We had students that were drilling

them with questions and they had

answers. And so I was big in this. I

went to my I went to Aadia Divinity

College to study to be a pastor and they

tried to convince me that it wasn't

true. those liberal professors at

Acadia. Um, but I held my ground and um

and I went off to my first church in

Perth Andover with my young earth

creationism intact. I called Creation

Ministries International. I said, "We

need you a speaker to come to our

church." And we had two nights where we

had a speaker come and and present the

arguments. Almost nobody came. Uh, but I

was like, "I don't care. This is too

important." We bought books for our

library, encouraged parents to take them

out for their kids and all of that. So I

am I was fully invested. Okay, you

understand? Fully invested in this.

Well,

then I met him. There was a man in my

church named Lee White. I've mentioned

him before, too. Brilliant guy.

He was a war hero. World War II war hero

pilot. He died at 104 years old. I did

his funeral. Incredible man. Never

stopped thinking. He was baptized at at

age 96.

Okay. And uh and never ever stopped

pursuing truth and digging deep. And uh

and I had preached on this or something

and and uh and uh he said, "Michael,

I think there's a book you should read."

And he gave me this book um called The

Language of God by Francis Collins.

There it is. And uh he said, "I find

this really interesting. I'd love to

talk to you about it sometime and hear

your perspective on it. A scientist

presents evidence for belief.

Uh but I was busy. I'm always busy. I

put the book on my shelf. I didn't get

to it for some time. Um but then over

time I started having questions and

doubts about young earth creationism.

there there were some things that

puzzled me, some riddles from science

and anthropology that didn't fit inside

my young earth framework. And I would

hear things and I would go, "But wait,

but but hold on now. That doesn't make

sense." Um, and I was beginning to

wonder if the Earth may actually be

older than the young Earth view. Maybe

all these brilliant scientists in the

world aren't actually wrong. Maybe,

heaven forbid, I could be wrong. Could I

dare admit it? It's still hard for me

this day to this day to admit when I'm

wrong. I I And so I started reading more

and more

and one by one the ideas from my

childhood started uh I don't know if

toppling is the right word, but the

foundations started getting pretty

shaky. So I I said, "Oh yeah, that

book." So I grabbed that book off my

shelf, The Language of God, and I read

it. And a great deal of it made sense to

me. It all started to make sense to me

in a way that I hadn't be it hadn't

before. Francis Collins um was the

leader of the human genome project. So

some of you remember I've talked about

him before. He brilliant scientist

mapped the human genome um and was the

head of the National Institute of Health

in the United States until just

recently. Uh so huge huge high up

brilliant scientist and he presented an

argument in his book for evolutionary

creationism

that evolution was the means by which

God created.

So where do I land now?

Well,

I'm probably an evolutionary creationist

or maybe some kind of an old earth

creationist. None of these views

perfectly satisfies every question for

me, but I do find the uh evolutionary

creationist camp the most satisfying.

And even if you don't land there with

me, if if you're at least willing to

consider that this is um an acceptable

view for a Christian to have, unlike

what Ken Ham would say, um then I think

it can be a very positive thing to be

willing to accept if this is true. So

let me explain why I think this. In

2011, uh, Bara, the Bara Research

Institute, Bara group, um, that do all

kinds of research into Christian trends

and stuff, church, church things and so

on. Um, they published five years of

research on why young people leave the

church.

Why do young people leave the church?

The book was called You Lost Me, I

think, is what it was called. Um and one

of the main reasons was quote churches

come across as antagonistic to science.

The question is sort of how many people

have grown up being told that you can't

believe in the big bang and evolution

and be a Christian at the same time. You

have to choose. So when confronted with

the scientific data,

opt to opt out of Christianity.

So evolutionary creation says, look, you

your trust in God, your love of Jesus,

your desire to be faithful to scripture

can remain intact and still believe in

the big bang and evolution as the means

that God used to create the world. In

other words, you don't have to reject

God to accept science.

And then on the other hand, you have

people like a guy named Josh that I was

meeting with a number of years ago,

maybe 10 years ago or so. Uh Josh was a

young man, educated, went off to

university, um and was not a believer,

believed firmly in evolution,

but he ran into Jesus.

He's like, I like this Jesus guy. I

think I really believe in Jesus. God

seems real to me, pastor, and I want to

embrace it. I want to be saved. But he

said, I don't think I can do that and

intellectually and with intellectual

honesty and believe that the earth is

only 6,000 years old.

So, evolutionary creation says again,

these things don't have to be at odds

with each other. You don't have to

reject science to believe in God.

And so when I explained this to Josh, it

was liberating for him and he came to

Christ and he got baptized.

And I've had similar conversations with

others over the years. Uh I think it's

fair to say that young earth creationism

can be a barrier to faith for some.

So, uh, evolutionary creation says,

look, you don't have to reject God to

accept science, and you don't have to

reject science to believe in God. And I

think to a degree, old earth creationism

would say the same thing. So, I like

this position,

not only because I think it seeks the

truth wherever the truth leads, right?

It doesn't it doesn't say you have to

ignore scientific truth in order to

follow God. It says you follow wherever

truth goes, follow it. And it's all

true. And they don't have to be at odds

with each other. Um, and also because I

I I like this view because it can really

help believers to keep their faith and

help remove barriers for others to find

their faith.

And interestingly, since I've come

around to this view over time, and it

was a journey, it wasn't just, oh, I

read a book and now I'm changing my

viewpoint. No, it was a long process of

discerning and thinking. I now find

science

fascinating and exciting, right? I used

to think, you know, oh, science, I have

to be careful. Science is the enemy. Uh,

mainstream science is the enemy. Uh, and

now I don't feel that way at all. Now,

like when when I'm listening to CBC

radio and Quirks and Quirks comes on, I

get so excited. Oh, I love that show.

Right. It's like, yeah, what's his name?

Bob something.

>> Bob McDonald. Ah, he's great, right? And

they get talking about all these

incredible discoveries and things and

and uh and I just go, "Wow, you know, so

that's how God did it or so that's uh

how God designed that thing. That is so

cool."

Dr. James Tor says, "If you really study

science, it will bring you closer to

God."

And that has been my experience as well.

Okay. Well,

I've said a lot of controversial things

this morning,

and you might be confused or you might

be angry.

Uh, you might think I'm crazy.

That's fine. I love you anyway. And

we're still brothers and sisters in

Christ.

And I'm always open for questions. And

if you want, you know, go back and

listen to this again and catch the

things you missed because I know we were

going fast. Um,

but all in all, I think what's important

is that we don't get obsessed with the

how like I did, right? I got obsessed

with the how God did it thing.

I think instead we need to focus on the

truth that God is the creator and all

that that means.

And we can lovingly disagree with an

open hand on the how. So what does it

mean as a as a concluding thought? What

does it mean that God is the creator?

Well, it means a lot of things.

It means that God sits enthroned over

creation.

And that's really good news when it

feels like everything is spinning out of

control.

And it does. Sometimes you read the

news, you go what is going on in this

world? And the fact that God is the

creator of the universe and sustainer of

the universe uh can give us peace. God

is ultimately in control. It's not

spinning out of control. It also reminds

us that God is the creator. That

creation has an owner.

It's God and we have a responsibility to

care for his planet.

It also reminds us that we are not here

by accident.

You are not a cosmic accident. Your life

has purpose. The fact that God is the

creator tells us that people have

inherent worth and dignity. It tells us

that matter is good, that morality makes

sense,

that worship is fitting,

that the world is ordered and

intelligible,

and that history has direction.

It's moving somewhere, somewhere good

according to God's good plans.

So whether you land young earth, old

earth, evolutionary creation, or

something else, stand firm here.

In the beginning, God.

And that's a pretty good foundation to

stand on. Amen.

>> Amen. Okay.

Chat GPT said, "You're going to get a

nasty email." No word of a lie. I put

this into chat GPT. I said, "What do you

think, ChatGpt? Is this fair and

balanced? And it said, you're gonna get

a nasty email.

So, I'm prepared for it.

All right. Will we stand together and uh

close in prayer?