I’ve just come across a review of my book by the blogger, Five Sided Christian. I’m filing it in the “You Can’t Win ‘Em All” category! The reviewer, James Miller, says he found my book unconvincing and is increasingly drawn towards old-earth creationism (OEC).
I must confess that I’ve never really understood the appeal of OEC, even though it seems very popular in some Christian circles. OEC faces many of the same serious theological difficulties as theistic evolution (e.g. the presence of death and bloodshed before human sin) without the apparent benefits (e.g. intellectual and scientific credibility). After all, OECs are still creationists (“boo, hiss!”). Even if the “death” that came by the curse in Genesis 3 applied only to humans and not animals, as OECs tend to argue, there’s still the problem of how that can be reconciled with the conventional fossil dates: witness the knots that Hugh Ross and co tie themselves into trying to place Adam in the hominid timeline.
I think if I was interested in harmonising the text of Scripture with the conventional geological and archaeological dates (and I’m not), then I’d go TE, not OEC. The evidence for biological evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for an old earth, so I’d see no sense in stopping at OEC.