The Hermeneutic of Exclusion: Analyzing Young Earth Creationist Declarations on Inerrancy
The Epistemological Wall: Article IV
The YEC declaration in Article IV establishes a hierarchy of knowledge that effectively renders scientific inquiry moot. By affirming that no evidence in history, archaeology, or science can be considered "valid" if it contradicts a specific interpretation of the scriptural record, YEC proponents create a closed epistemological circle.
The primary error here is the conflation of Scripture with a specific interpretation of Scripture. While the declaration claims to protect the "scriptural record," it is actually protecting a 20th-century literalist reading of that record. This creates a "no-win" scenario for the physical sciences. If science agrees with the YEC interpretation, it is redundant; if it disagrees, it is dismissed a priori as "invalid." This is not a search for truth but a defensive posture that ignores the Reformation principle of "General Revelation"—the idea that God reveals Himself through the created order as well as through the Word.
Furthermore, the declaration’s denial that scientific evidence for an old earth is "objective fact" relies on a misunderstanding of the scientific method. While it is true that all data requires interpretation, YEC proponents often use "naturalistic presuppositions" as a catch-all dismissal for any data that requires deep time. This ignores the fact that the laws of physics—such as radioactive decay constants or the speed of light—are not "presuppositions" but measurable constants that remain consistent across both "secular" and "faith-based" laboratories.
The Geological Fallacy: Article XI
Article XI moves from the philosophical to the physical, asserting that the Flood was a "global" event responsible for "thousands of meters of strata and fossils." This declaration contains the most significant scientific errors, as it attempts to compress the complex history of the Earth’s lithosphere into a single year-long event.
The Fossil Record and Strata
Flood geology insists that the vast majority of the fossil record was laid down during Noah’s Flood. However, the geological record displays a sophisticated, sorted order that a chaotic, global flood could not produce. We see a progression from simple marine organisms to complex vertebrates, with specific "index fossils" appearing in predictable layers globally. A single catastrophic event would be expected to mix these organisms together—or at the very least, sort them by hydrodynamic buoyancy. Instead, we find heavy, bottom-dwelling trilobites in layers far below lighter, more buoyant mammals.
The claim that "thousands of meters of sedimentary rock" were produced by the Flood also fails the test of physics. Many sedimentary layers, such as those found in the Grand Canyon, show evidence of "aeolian" (wind-blown) deposition, such as desert sand dunes, or "paleosols" (fossilized soils with root structures). It is physically impossible for a global flood to deposit a layer of sediment, allow it to dry out, grow a forest, and then bury it under another layer of water-borne sediment within the span of 365 days.
The Theological Error: Narrowing the Gates
Beyond the scientific hurdles, these declarations commit a significant theological error by making a specific geological view a "test" for biblical inerrancy. By stating that one must accept a global, catastrophic flood to truly believe in the Bible, YEC proponents exclude a vast number of orthodox Christians—including those who hold to "Local Flood" theories or "Day-Age" views—from the fold of "true" believers.
This narrows the definition of inerrancy to a point of fragility. If the "truth" of the Bible depends on the Earth being 6,000 years old, then any single piece of evidence to the contrary (such as a 800,000-year-old ice core or a 50,000-year-old carbon-dated artifact) becomes an existential threat to one's entire faith system. This creates a brittle theology that often leads to a "crisis of faith" when believers are confronted with the overwhelming evidence for an ancient universe.
The Problem of "Naturalistic Presuppositions"
YEC declarations frequently attack "naturalism," but they often misidentify what it is. Methodological naturalism—the practice of looking for natural causes for natural phenomena—is the basis of all modern science, including the science that allows for medicine, aviation, and telecommunications. By labeling the calculation of "millions of years" as a "naturalistic presupposition," YEC declarations suggest that God actively intervened to make the Earth look old while it is actually young.
This leads to a troubling theological conclusion: a "God of Deception." If the light from a star 10 million light-years away is reaching Earth, but the universe is only 6,000 years old, then God must have created the light "in transit." This means the star we see never actually existed in the state we are observing; we are looking at a divine movie projection of a history that never happened. This contradicts the biblical character of God as a God of truth who reveals Himself through His handiwork (Psalm 19).
Conclusion: A Faulty Foundation
The augmented affirmations and denials of YEC flood geologists represent an attempt to protect the Bible by building a wall around it. However, this wall is constructed from logical fallacies and a rejection of the physical evidence God has provided in the natural world.
The error of these declarations lies in their refusal to allow the "Two Books"—the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature—to speak in harmony. By forcing the physical world to conform to a rigid, literalist interpretation of a few chapters of Genesis, YEC proponents create a version of "inerrancy" that is increasingly alienated from reality. True inerrancy should not fear the laboratory or the fossil bed; it should trust that the God who spoke the Word is the same God who laid the foundations of the Earth, and that ultimately, these two testimonies will not contradict one another.
Let me respond plainly, because this critique sounds more decisive than it actually is.
ReplyDeleteI agree on one key point up front: all ancient past models are abductive. None of us are doing direct observation when we reconstruct Genesis, the Flood, or Earth’s early history. We are inferring past causes from present effects. That applies equally to young-earth, old-earth, and secular models. So the real question is not whether interpretation is happening. It is which interpretive authority is allowed to override the other when there is tension.
The charge that YEC declarations build an “epistemological wall” misses the mark. Scripture is not being confused with a modern scientific model. It is being treated as the highest authority over historical claims. That is not anti-science. It is a theological commitment. The alternative offered here simply shifts final authority to contemporary scientific consensus while pretending to be neutral.
Appeals to General Revelation do not solve this. General revelation still requires interpretation. Rocks do not announce their age. Deep time is not observed; it is inferred under assumptions of continuity and no global catastrophe. Those assumptions are presuppositions, whether we like the word or not.
The geological argument relies heavily on the claim that a global flood would produce chaos. That is false. Large hydraulic systems routinely produce ordered, laterally extensive strata. Order in the fossil record does not equal time; it equals process plus starting conditions. Time is inferred, not read directly from the rocks.
Index fossils demonstrate consistent burial patterns, not chronology. Paleosols and aeolian features do not require long tranquil periods by physical necessity; that conclusion depends on assumed timescales.
The theological warning about “brittle faith” also misfires. A faith becomes brittle when it ties biblical truth to the stability of scientific consensus. Scripture makes historical claims, including the resurrection. If those claims yield whenever reconstructions disagree, inerrancy becomes empty.
Ironically, this critique accuses YECs of exclusion while excluding any framework that refuses to subordinate Scripture to modern historical reconstruction. That is not harmony between the two books. It is quiet hierarchy.