As several posts have pointed out, the main strength of young-earth
creationism's appeal to Christians [and presumably to Muslims, etc.] is the
claim of truth to Scripture. However, the claim that any interpretation is
based solely on Scripture is either naive or dishonest. To understand
anything, we must connect it with our own experience. "Silla niin on
Jumala maailmaa rakastanut" does me no good, whereas "For God so loved the
world" is significant to me because I have experience with English and not
with Finnish. This is not to endorse deconstructionism; it is possible to
communicate these experiences, and there is only one correct interpretation
(though many applications) of Scripture.
If you claim that everything was created in six twenty-four hour
days, you are using extra-Biblical science in forming your view. The Bible
never refers to twenty-four hours in a day; in fact, this is derived from
Babylonian astrology. Especially in poetic passages, the Bible uses many
metaphors. To detect them requires applying scientific knowledge to the
Bible, not vice versa. Ps. 19:4 says "He has placed a tent for the sun".
Do you believe that NASA, in an atheistic conspiracy, has edited the tent
out of astronomical photos, or do you believe that this is a poetic
description of how God rules over the heavens, setting and holding the sun
in its place? Similarly, in the only Biblical report of an axe head
falling into the water, in II Kings 6, it sinks and then floats back to the
surface. Either anyone who claims axeheads normally sink is a fraud, or we
use our and other's experience to determine that this is a miracle and not
the normal way in which things happen. Ps. 19:1 states that "the heavens
are telling of the glory of God, and their expanse is declaring the work of
His hands". If so, study of creation is valid. "Study of creation" is a
reasonable description of science.
If there seems to be a conflict between science and Scripture,
there are logically four possibilities (not mutually exclusive): the
science is wrong, the Scripture is wrong, our interpretation of the science
is wrong, or our interpretation of Scripture is wrong. The inerrancy of
Scripture eliminates the second possibility, and the accuracy of data can
be tested to some degree. Thus, our interpretations of both the science
and of Scripture must be examined. All too often, one of these is
considered infallible.
David Campbell