Fallible humans can be mistaken about what we see in nature; the evidence might not be what we think it is. But, similarly, fallible humans can be mistaken in their interpretations of scripture. We see conflicting interpretations of many passages in the Bible, and those conflicting interpretations can't all be right. Interpretations of scripture and observations of nature should ultimately not conflict. One or both should be adjusted until the conflict is resolved. ... Scriptural interpretations shouldn't be used to define reality. What we see in the universe at large needs to be reconciled with what we read.
I have made a couple of observations about young-earth creationists during conversations and debates with them. First, they are renowned for emphasizing a plain and straight-forward reading of scriptures and criticizing the contortions that old-earth interpretations can put biblical data through. However, they seem oblivious to the fact that they are guilty of exactly the same thing, only in reverse. They never equally emphasize a plain and straight-forward reading of nature and are unconcerned about the contortions that young-earth interpretations can put empirical data through.
Be it resolved among Christians: God is the one and same author of both scripture and nature—a theological fact that young-earth creationists seem happy to admit but quick to forget. It is even stated explicitly in the confessional standards of the Reformed faith, commonly a bastion of young-earth creationism: Article 2 of the Belgic Confession of Faith says, in part, that one of the means by which we know God is "by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God." As Cornelius Van Til said (
1946 [PDF]), so eloquently and astutely, "God's revelation in nature, together with God's revelation in Scripture, form God's one grand scheme of covenant revelation of himself to man. The two forms of revelation must therefore be seen as presupposing and supplementing one another."
Second, they claim that to deny young-earth creationism is to deny scripture, or they accuse old-earth creationists of denying or contradicting scripture, statements which expose a degree of hubris that is difficult to believe—for it shows they have conflated a human interpretation (young-earth creationism) with divine revelation (scripture). In reality, what old-earth creationists are denying or contradicting is a fallible human interpretation that they're convinced is wrong, and by denying young-earth creationism one has not denied scripture.
There are people who believe that the moon generates its own light, due to scripture. We can check that. No, the moon reflects the sun's light. It doesn't generate its own light. Now, our observations could be in error, but considering the overwhelming evidence, it's much easier to conclude that the interpretation of the scripture is flawed.
I really appreciate something John Frame wrote in
The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2002), p. 303: "We should not assume at the outset that the scientists are wrong; it is also possible that our interpretation of scripture is wrong—though it is not possible for scripture itself to be wrong."
