Review of John Lennox's Book Seven Days That
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Answers Research Journal 5 (2012):89–97. www.answersingenesis.org/arj/v5/review-john-lennox-seven-days.pdf Review of John Lennox’s Book Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science Simon Turpin, Full-time church worker, St. Albans, Hertfordshire, England Abstract The issue of the age of the earth is contested within evangelicalism with many leading evangelical apologists advocating an old earth. John Lennox has risen to prominence in the last few years as one of the foremost defenders of the Christian faith, influencing many in this generation. In his bookSeven Days That Divide the World Lennox seeks to show that Christians need not be divided over the issue of the age of the earth, and that the Bible’s account of creation in Genesis fits well with contemporary science. In doing this he attempts to show that the young earth view of creation is akin to believing in a fixed earth. Lennox reasons that the church has been wrong in the past over its interpretation of Scripture in light of scientific discovery, and that those holding to a young earth are wrong again. This paper will show that Lennox’s arguments for an old earth cannot be supported either by Scripture or the history of the church. Keywords: Lennox, young earth, old earth, Galileo, church fathers, days of creation, Creation Week, fourth day, death and suffering, age of the earth Introduction 2. It fails to do justice to the fact that there are John Lennox is a professor of mathematics and different interpretations of the Genesis account a fellow in the philosophy of science at Oxford even among those Christians who ascribe final University. He is a devoted follower of Christ and a authority to the Bible. skilful apologist. 3. It obscures the (original) purpose of using the In his book Seven Days That Divide the World, term “intelligent design,” which is to make a very Lennox explores the “potential minefield” of the important distinction between the recognition controversy of Genesis and science. He wrote the of design and the identification of the designer book for people who have been put off considering (Lennox 2009, p. 11). the Christian faith because of the “. very silly, Lennox, an advocate of old-earth creationism, unscientific story that the world was made in seven does believe that man is a “direct special creation” by days,” (Lennox 2011, p. 12),1 for convinced Christians God (Lennox 2011, p. 69), and that humans have not who are disturbed by the controversy, as well as for evolved. He affirms that “it is crucial to the theology those who take the Bible seriously but do not agree of salvation that Adam was the first actual member on the interpretation of the creation account (Lennox of a human race physically distinct from all creatures 2011, p. 12). Although the book is not intended to be that preceded him” (Lennox 2011, p. 73). exhaustive in its scope, it has been written in response This review of John Lennox’s book Seven Days to many requests made of Dr. Lennox over the years. That Divide the World will critique seven arguments It is important to respond to this book as Dr. Lennox Lennox uses for an old-earth interpretation of the is influential in evangelicalism, and the book itself is creation account in Genesis. endorsed by many leading evangelical apologists.2 In previous writings Lennox has noted that the A History Lesson meaning of the term “creationism” has mutated and Lennox recognizes this is a controversial topic, now comes with the idea that the earth is only a few and that disagreement over it has been acrimonious thousand years old. According to Lennox this has at times. In order to gain perspective on the way to three unfortunate effects: handle this controversy, he looks at another major 1. It polarizes the discussion giving a soft target to controversy in history—the Copernican Revolution. those who reject out of hand any notion of intelligent However, Lennox merely raises the issue of causation in the universe. geocentricism, noting that the Bible, in certain 1 This quote does not represent Lennox’s attitude, but the attitude of someone else that Lennox is quoting. However, the implication of Lennox’s arguments in the book leads the reader to the same conclusion, that young earth creationism is very silly and unscientific. 2 Those who have endorsed the book include Paul Copan, Ravi Zacharias, Alvin Plantinga, C.John Collins, Doug Groothuis, and Henry F. Schaefer III. ISSN: 1937-9056 Copyright © 2012, 2016 Answers in Genesis, Inc. All content is owned by Answers in Genesis (“AiG”) unless otherwise indicated. AiG consents to unlimited copying and distribution of print copies of Answers Research Journal articles for non-commercial, non-sale purposes only, provided the following conditions are met: the author of the article is clearly identified; Answers in Genesis is acknowledged as the copyright owner; Answers Research Journal and its website, www.answersresearchjournal.org, are acknowledged as the publication source; and the integrity of the work is not compromised in any way. For website and other electronic distribution and publication, AiG consents to republication of article abstracts with direct links to the full papers on the ARJ website. All rights reserved. For more information write to: Answers in Genesis, PO Box 510, Hebron, KY 41048, Attn: Editor, Answers Research Journal. The views expressed are those of the writer(s) and not necessarily those of the Answers Research Journal Editor or of Answers in Genesis. 90 S. Turpin passages, seems to suggest a fixed earth (see 1 For example, Psalm 93:1 states, “Surely the world Chronicles 16:30; Psalm 93:1; Psalm 104:5; 1 is established, so that it cannot be moved.” Therefore, Samuel 2:8) and that the sun moves (Psalm 19:4–6; because passages such as this are poetic, and are Ecclesiastes 1:5) (Lennox 2011, pp. 16–17). Presuming heavily laden with figurative speech, we should be that his readers now accept the heliocentric view, careful of concluding that a specific verse should be Lennox asks: read literally. The Psalmist was merely stating that Why do Christians accept this “new” interpretation, God established the earth and no one can overturn and not still insist on a “literal” understanding of the His purposes for it. “pillars of the earth”? Why are we not still split up Genesis 1–11 is clearly written as historical into fixed-earthers and moving-earthers? Is it really narrative, although this does not exclude figures of because we have all compromised, and made Scripture speech. The repeated use of the waw consecutive, subservient to science? (Lennox 2011, p. 19). which is an essential characteristic of narrative Unfortunately, the insinuation here is that young- adding to the past narration an element of sequence, earth creationists are akin to fixed-earthers, and that helps to identify it as so (Kaiser 2001, p. 80). Appearing they should catch up with the Galileos of this world. Old- 55 times in the 34 verses in Genesis 1:1–2:3 the waw earth creationists, on the other hand, are portrayed as consecutive is consistent with the narrative material having shown that the “fixed earth” and “young earth” found in the remainder of Genesis (McCabe 2009, are misinterpretations of both science and Scripture. p . 217 ). For some reason he brings up this issue throughout The primary element of Hebrew poetry is the book, insisting that if we applied the same parallelism and strophes (Osborne 2006, p. 238) with reasoning we use to interpret the days literally to figurative language being more predominant than the interpretation of the foundation and pillars of the in prose and more difficult to understand (Osborne earth, then we would be still insisting that the earth 2006, p. 239). But parallelism is not found in Genesis does not move (Lennox 2011, p. 61). Lennox emphasizes 1:1–2:3 as E. J. Young states: that the issue raised by the Galileo controversy . it is not poetry. For one thing the characteristics of focuses on how the Bible should be interpreted. He Hebrew poetry are lacking, and in particular there is rightly notes that there is different literature in the an absence of parallelism (Young 1964, pp. 82–83). Bible, and that our interpretation should be guided by Although there may be a discussion concerning the “. natural understanding of a passage, sentence, artistic elements of the Genesis creation account, it word, or phrase in its context, historically, culturally is an undisputed fact that Genesis is not a poetic text and linguistically” (Lennox 2011, pp. 21–22). He also (Blocher 1984, p. 32; Hasel 1994, pp. 19–21; Kaiser points out that a literal understanding of a text in 2001, pp. 80–82). places will not work as the Bible contains figures of The history of the Galileo affair shows that the speech and metaphors (Lennox 2011, pp. 23–25). church was wrong in its interpretation of certain The lesson Lennox wants us to learn from the passages of Scripture. The answer to Lennox’s Galileo affair is that question as to why we are not split into fixed-earthers . Christians eventually came to accept this “new” and moving-earthers is: interpretation [moving earth] and ceased to insist on 1. The Bible does not teach a fixed earth. a literalistic understanding of the foundations and 2. Observational science is more consistent with the pillars of the earth (Lennox 2011, p. 27). heliocentric view. He goes on: The church in Galileo’s day mistakenly thought Were these differences simply driven by a desire on that the Bible supported a geocentric system by the part of the moving-earth faction to fit in with allowing Aristotelian philosophy to influence the advances in science .