What is wrong with this that would make celebrated YEC's reject it?


I sent the following to multiple celebrated defenders of YEC, but the only reply I got to it was of unexplained rejection. Can anyone here tell me why any YEC would reject it? Am I a flake? Is that it? I don't get it.

Organizations such as CMI and AIG represent a particular kind of YEC advocacy. Like all YEC advocacy, this kind wants for the secular world to accept Genesis 1 as historically true. But, just like that secular world, this particular kind of YEC advocacy assumes that the Genesis 1 text consists in little more than what it spells out.

This kind of YEC advocacy also assumes that particular parts of Genesis 1 either or both are (a) fairly ancillary to its author's main purposes, or (b) primarily of 'spiritual' intent. If we allow (a), then we are denying that Genesis 1 ought to be an irreducibly complex account. Then we are rendering the account as something thrown together, even if we hold that much of it is of a single piece.

Amy Orr-Ewing explains how the four books of the Gospel are far more than what they spell out. Specifically, Orr-Ewing shows that these books bear the nuanced marks of actual histories. This is as opposed to works of fiction, and to careless or presumptuous accounts.

Evolutionists can make their just-so stories. And they can have those stories accepted as reality by so many people. But, unless Genesis 1 and 2 are an irreducibly complex pair, per at least every detail of Genesis 1, then that foundational part of the Christian story has no real linguistic or literary superiority to the language and patterns of any false story.

But, given what is widely known today of human language capacity (i.e., the history of modern hand Sign Language), it ought to be granted by every YEC today that God created the human kind with the natural ability to create a language from conversational scratch: from bio-semantic, enviro-semantic scratch. It therefore would be odd, and unnecessary, for God to have 'front-loaded' a complete basic language in the minds of Adam and Eve. It even would be counter-productive therewith to the historiography of any first one or two accounts that Adam and Eve preserved in prosthetic record.

But, it seems it is taken for granted by virtually all YEC's that there ought to be little or no historiographic (and thus apologetic) difference whether Genesis 1 was (x) composed by Adam, or, instead, (y) is the word-for-word self-report on the part of God of everything He said and did ONLY at all the points at which He said and did them.

H M. Morris III* admits that Adam was made naturally flawless in cognition. But Morris, in considering the fact that Adam knew that Eve had been made from part of himself (Genesis 2:23), presumes to have properly determined the answer as being that which his own fallen and 'educated' cognition finds to be by far the easiest to imagine:

This particular information, of course, must have been imparted to Adam by God in later discourse with Adam.

* Morris, H. M. 2000. Biblical Creationism: What Each Book of the Bible Teaches about Creation and the Flood. http://intelmin.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/BiblicalCreationismL... page 22.

Is it that hard to see the implicit obvious thereto that comprises Genesis 1? The Genesis 1 account bears every mark of Adam's knowing this by indirect providential means. Even Genesis 1:1 by itself implies this in two ways. (If you want me to specify those two ways for you, let me know.) So God didn't have to spell it out for him. Adam saw God's character thereto in the entire created world. We do not need to render God some kind of nutcase: despite His stating that He had created the human person in His image, He cannot have stooped to Adam's non-omniscient level by creating the world so that it was perfectly coherent.

But Morris, in his introduction to his above-linked book, reasons:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1).

This simple declarative statement can only have come by divine revelation. Its scope is comprehensively universal, embracing all space (heaven), all time (beginning), and all matter (earth) in our space/time/matter cosmos. It is the first and only statement of real creation in all the cosmogonies of all the nations of past or present. All other creation myths begin with the universe already in existence, in watery chaos, or in some other primordial form. Evidently man, [what about unfallen man?] with unaided reason, cannot conceive of true creation; he must begin with something. But Genesis 1:1 speaks of creation ex nihilo; only God could originate such a concept, and only an infinite, omnipotent God could create the universe.

This revelation was given initially by God Himself to the very first man and woman and has been transmitted down through the ages to all their children. God either wrote it down with His own finger on a table of stone, as He later did the tablets of the law (Exod. 31:18), or else He revealed it verbally to Adam, who recorded it.

Here Morris deduces that the account implies that God designed humans deficient in terms of conceiving of creation ex nihilo. But that would mean that, despite what the Scripture says, humans have no normal, God-given capacity to recognize even that a Creator must exist!

Therefore, Morris renders humans little more sensible than simulating computing devices that need to be explicitly programmed with the concept of this 'true creation.' Morris conflates

(a) the very human nature that God designed,


(b) the tendency of every wayward fallen human culture.

But, the fact that even most atheists normally imply the essence of (a) by the term 'common sense' is not a fact that ought to be twisted to serve the kind of Christian-chauvinism that denies even the God-given common humanity of the minds of Christians.

Morris deems himself to be little better than such a computing device, and this is why he presumes that Deuteronomy 29:29 implies that whatever the Christian canon spells out about a given thing constitutes the greatest extent to which, in this life, we are meant to know or understand about that thing:

What does it mean that God “created” in His own “image”? Theologians and students of Scripture have been pondering this concept for millennia. What hints can we find in the Bible? (…) Just what is God's image? There are a number of hints in the Bible, but not enough to be completely sure. Some things remain secret with God; God told Moses that way back in Deuteronomy chapter 29: 'I've given some things for you to know; I've revealed them to you. But the secret things belong to me.'%

Deuteronomy 29:29 is specific to the Law of Moses. It does not include the book of Genesis, or even Moses's own personal history. The Bible is not being deliberately reticent. Rather, its writers, beginning with Adam, took for granted that their readers would find certain things abundantly obvious in its words.

So all three Morrises render God akin to the insane kind of Drill Sergeant who wants to 'break you into a Pile of Nothing so that you will be mindlessly compliant to his every command.' This is a most grievously erroneous way of thinking of God. God did not give to humans their divine image-bearing only to take it from them as a means of making them godly. We are not ever to be robots serving God's verbatim, for otherwise we are no better then the Pharisees whom Jesus opposed.

% Morris, H. M. III. 4. Day Six---Made in God's Image. http://www.icr.org/article/9476/202 @ 02:22-02:56.

Views: 96

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Daniel Pech.

babies are dumb. Their memories arte not working right.

People today only use a small number of words. Not all that we know.

So Adam would of made up words instantly enough to talk.

His thoughts would instantly be put into words. He would not struggle for words.

he spoke perfectly instantly.

Therefore it must the original language was very simply using sounds to express thoughts and the spirit behind them.

A natural thing just like his suddenly walking.

I don't see as a option a slow development in language.

Words are not that big a deal. Just now because its all been skrewed around.

It comes back to what language is and then what the original language was.

It was not words but a system of sounds that easily created words. Something like that.

Daniel Pech said:

Robert Byers

I'm imagining Adam immediately spoke in a glorious language within ten minutes.

Do you mean a complete language: one with tens of thousands of words corresponding to as many ideas, subjects, verbs, etc.?

Strange but I think so. Not developing over time.

Do you mean 'not developed over much time'?

The bible says communication was effortless from day one.

By 'effortless' do you mean 'without struggle, mistakes, etc.' ? What I am wondering is whether your thinking the way you do here is only because of the fact that, say, adults in the fallen world are unable to just think up a complete new language even within several days?...

...You know, learning a foreign language can take a long time. This is especially so if it is conducted through the academic mode of mind that was used in the 'foreign language classes' in high schools and colleges in the 1960's.

...So...How do your ideas here relate to the four-point Pimsleur Method?


The Pimsleur® Method is (...) a (...) set of principles designed to take a learner directly to the heart of the language, eliminating noise, confusion, and information overload. People all over the world are using Pimsleur programs to start speaking, understanding, and reading new languages quickly and easily. If you haven’t experienced it for yourself, you may find it hard to believe that something so simple could work so well. (...) The Pimsleur Method is made up of a few key principles: Graduated Interval Recall[,] Principle of Anticipation[,] Core Vocabulary[, and] Organic Learning(...).

Of the Pimsleur Method, one client reports:

I used to think learning a second language would be an insurmountable task, as boring and painful as retaking high school Spanish. I was wrong. I bought the Basic Spanish 10 lessons and mastered it in one weekend. The Pimsleur approach works perfectly with how my brain is wired. I even found myself dreaming in Spanish.

...so...how do your ideas about Adam's language relate to the language acquisition of babies?

Suppose that Adam and Eve had remained unfallen, so that they then had unfallen babies. Would your ideas here apply to those babies as well?

In my view, Adam's lack of an inherited set of fallen bio-cognitive cultural expectations would have put him rather near to the Pimsleur Method in terms of developing a language. It would have been easy and natural for him, without any struggle.

I did not read my way through the novel of information written earlier, but assuming you believe in a 6 day creation, I find it rather incredible that you can see that God can create a fully functioning universe and animals but cannot create a mature man and woman with a fully functioning language in place.

Hi Melanie,

You said:

I did not read my way through the novel of information written earlier, but assuming you believe in a 6 day creation, I find it rather incredible that you can see that God can create a fully functioning universe and animals but cannot create a mature man and woman with a fully functioning language in place.

I'm sorry. I wasn't clear. I do not mean to be implying any such incapacity on God's part. I allow that God can cause you, right now, if He saw fit, to be able to read and understand every written language that has ever existed, and every written language that currently in the world is being practiced. Hindi, ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, even the most unknown current forms of writing invented in the last four years by some isolated jungle tribe.

So, no, I am not saying what it is that you've quite validly deduced from my words. It is indeed a valid deduction, and presumably fits the evidence that constitutes the little of my word's that you've read. Nevertheless, in my case, that deduction is incorrect.

Thank you bringing the ambiguity to my attention. I do not mean to misdirect anyone with my words; Nor, even, with my attitude, on the too-large number of occasions when I want to 'wring some necks', so to speak.

You've certainly wrung a neck here, though fortunately for both of us it is not actually mine! :)

I'm sorry for the mistake.

In my next post, I will try to summarize what I do, and do not, have in mind in all that I've been saying in this thread.

...Ok, maybe not yet a summary of all my posts. Too complex for me right now.

But maybe I can put into effectively communicative words what it is that I do and do not have in mind about language and Adam and Eve.

For me personally, the question of the language of Adam and Eve has everything to do with the explanatory power of Genesis 1 and 2.

Part of that explanatory power would be in the compact way in which many or all of its details may be found naturally to imply all of the most basic things of which humans naturally, benevolently---and of all animal life forms uniquely---are capable, and in certain circumstances naturally inclined and gifted.

So, first, we have the idea that God must have created our two original fully functional adults with a complete ready-made language. This idea may be espoused in combination with one or more presuppositions (of which one is that, otherwise, God's power to create is not being properly represented; and another of which is that it is just simpler for us, cognitively, to espouse this idea).

Nevertheless, second, we have the fact that humans can and do develop a language from 'scratch' when they do not already have a language.

But we may have the concern that God's creative power is not being properly exercised if He does ensure that Adam and Eve already have a complete language.

But that same concern has any number of insurmountable problems. Only to begin with, there is the question of what constitutes a complete language?

How 'complete' a language is proper to God's creative power? As for the corresponding part of Genesis 2, how much of a 'complete' language is it that lacks names for animals? Or, instead, did Adam name the animals from a ready-made set of names:

"You look like a...(looks through a list of names)...'bear'. And you over there, let's see, (leafs through pages of names)...let's just call you a 'duck-billed platypus'.

And that one, yes, you; let's go with 'aardvark'.

...You don't like 'aardvark'? Ok, how about 'ant-eater'? You're vegetarian?

Well, I've been assigned to do the naming, so I can't just let you pick your own name.

...You're going to appeal 'aardvark'? Well, according to what Genesis 2 spells out, you have no right of appeal. So you'll just have to accept it."

Indeed, part of God's power is precisely to create a creature so that that creature is 'in God's image'.

That's what Genesis 1 says.

So unless this 'image' is genuine, it is more a name or pretentious 'flourish' than an actuality. But God did not just say this for effect on some ignorantly 'worshipful' audience" "Oooh, aaahhh!"

He meant it: He went on and actually created a creature in His image.

And the account does NOT specify that that image is solely, or even mainly, that of moral culpability for violating that image. Rather, the account explains that image in entirely positive terms. After all, this is Genesis 1, not Genesis 3.

Reply to Discussion


About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms

Homeschool Curriculum


Creation Conversations 2017

What's new @ CC for 2017? Stay tuned and keep checking back. More ask the experts, more creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2017   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service