Apologist Matt Walsh makes a seriously uninformed attack on biblical creationism
Published: 25 October 2018 (GMT+10)
Well-known conservative blogger and apologist Matt Walsh just came out with a podcast that denounced biblical (or ‘young earth’) creation, and many of our supporters have brought it to our attention.1 It is always deeply frustrating and saddening when supposed prominent defenders of Christian moral values in the public sphere take compromising views on creation. We decided to respond directly to his podcast, with the purpose being to equip Christians to respond to the flawed arguments he put forward—especially since Walsh represents an otherwise respected voice in the evangelical Christian community at the moment. We also felt the need to respond because Mr. Walsh is a frequent speaker at homeschool conventions in the USA, where families expect to receive sound Christian instruction.
Listening to what Walsh has to say on the issue, there is one thing above all that stands out and cannot be ignored: Walsh has clearly never spent any quantity of time studying what the actual modern-day defenders of biblical creation have to say. He displays shocking ignorance of biblical creationism throughout the entirety of his podcast, and in many places is guilty of using strawman arguments which completely fail to engage with what biblical creationists actually believe (or the Bible itself, for that matter). This is unacceptable given the amount of information available today via the prominent creationist organizations that exist.
A Twitter-level understanding of the issues
Walsh complains that he has been involved in many arguments on Twitter with people on this issue. Unfortunately, it appears he did not extend himself much beyond that realm when trying to find out what reasons biblical creationists actually have for our position! It is no exaggeration to say that there is absolutely nothing in Walsh’s podcast which has not already been dealt with extensively in our publications (like Refuting Compromise and The Genesis Account).
The Genre of Genesis
He begins by stating that both sides (young and old-earthers) agree that not all the Bible must be taken strictly literally. He appeals to the parables of Jesus for an example of this. We would not disagree here. However, he quickly goes off the rails when he begins to state that Genesis need not be understood as part of a literal genre. He implies that it may be, like the book of Psalms, a book of poetry. Good Old Testament scholarship does not view Genesis as poetry; Genesis is a historical narrative.
The Hebrew use of the word ‘yôm’ (day)
Walsh argues that the Hebrew word for day need not always mean a literal 24-hour period. That’s true, but what about context? Walsh completely ignores the issue of context in his argument here, and follows in the footsteps of progressive creationist Hugh Ross by committing the fallacy of an unwarranted adoption of an expanded semantic range. Just because a word can mean something in some other context does not mean it does in this particular context! Dr. Jonathan Sarfati writes,
When modified by a cardinal number (for example, one, two, three …) or ordinal number (for example, first, second, third …), as used 359 times in the OT outside Genesis 1, yôm always means a literal day of about 24 hours, or the light portion of the day-night cycle. This is true in narrative, legal writings, prophecy, wisdom literature, and even poetry. So there must be extraordinary reasons to justify an extraordinary exception, if Genesis 1 is indeed an exception.2,3
A long tradition of old earthism?
Walsh, again, just like Ross, makes the misleading claim that there is long tradition of Christians not interpreting the days of Genesis literally. While it’s true that there were some early church fathers that did not hold to literal 24-hour days, Walsh is flat out wrong when he implies these were old-earthers. As we have pointed out, these particular theologians were motivated by philosophical considerations to believe that 24-hour periods were too long! The truth is that belief in deep time has really only crept into Christianity as a result of an attempt to compromise with the prevailing secular viewpoint.
What about light before the sun?
Walsh attempts to make much of the fact that God created light on day 1 before the sun on day 4. He views this as a knock-down proof that these could not have been literal 24-hour periods, since that is defined by the earth’s rotation with respect to the sun. But this is, logically speaking, a complete non-sequitur. Is God somehow incapable of keeping track of time without the help of the physical sun? Is anything too hard for God? Since the grammar of the narrative is clear that these are regular, literal days, we have no reason not to take the first three days in the same sense as the rest! God is capable of dividing light from darkness and evening from morning even without the help of the physical sun. In Exodus 20:11, God specifically draws a parallel between his own work week (the creation week) and the work week of the nation of Israel. If God didn’t work for a literal week, then this comparison makes no sense.
Did Adam and Eve literally die?
Another argument brought forth is that God promised Adam and Eve that “in the day you eat of it [the forbidden fruit] you shall surely die.” (Gen. 2:17). Walsh reasons that since they didn’t literally die that day, it must refer only to spiritual, not physical death, repeating another Hugh Ross argument. But the consequences of the Curse are clearly not merely spiritual, but physical as well. God curses the very ground for our sake. He introduced pain in childbirth as well as thorns and thistles in nature. Are those spiritual thorns and thistles? What would that even mean? He displays no awareness of the fact that the literal translation of the Hebrew there should read, “dying you shall die.” God was basically saying that the penalty for sin would be the loss of immortality; that the process of death would begin at that moment—not that the process of dying would be completed in one day. Walsh also ignores the difference in grammatical construction here: “in the day,” as opposed to “day one,” “day two,” etc.
A “day with the Lord …” lasts 1000 years??
Walsh predictably trots out the well-worn misapplication of 2 Peter 3:8, “with the Lord a day is like a thousand years…” He uses this to try to imply that God does not have to mean literal days when he uses the word ‘day’. But the full reading of the verse brings us back – a thousand years are like a day. This is synonymous parallelism. Peter is merely making a point about how God is not limited in his perspective of time as man is; but that has no bearing on the debate about how the Hebrew is to be interpreted in Genesis 1.4 It’s just a red herring.
A gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2?
Another argument that Walsh alludes to, but doesn’t fully flesh out in the podcast, is that there may be a gap of possibly billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. He is unaware that this argument is thoroughly refuted when scripture is allowed to interpret scripture. Jesus affirmed that God created mankind “from the beginning of creation” in Mark 10:6. How can we possibly insert a gap of billions of years before the creation of mankind when God made it clear we were here “from the beginning of creation”? Only by twisting scripture can one justify taking that approach.
Do we reject science?
Towards the end of the podcast, Walsh really puts his cards on the table. He unloads this whopper of an elephant-hurling5 statement: “In order to defend the 6-day creationist view, we must essentially reject the fields of modern astronomy, cosmology, geology and biology. We must declare that all but a very tiny fraction of experts in these fields are deluded fools … we must wage an all-out war on modern science.”1 Is that really true? Must we choose between science and the Bible? Walsh would have us believe that the science supporting old earth and evolutionary views is indisputable, but that is far from the case. What we have a problem with is not science, but rather the secular consensus views when it comes to the age of the earth and evolution. Walsh clearly shows that secular science is his authority, not Scripture that he is purportedly trying to defend.
The all-important distinction: Operational and Historical Science
As we have tried so many times to point out, there is a fundamental distinction to be made between operational and historical science; Walsh never displays the slightest awareness of this, however. He creates a false dichotomy: science or biblical creation. In reality, good science supports the Bible, and there are many scientific reasons, not only theological ones, to reject an old earth. Reasons like soft tissue being found preserved in dinosaur bones that are supposedly millions of years old, for example. We know from science that the soft tissues and proteins that are being found in these supposedly ancient specimens cannot last that long!
Distant Starlight
Walsh believes that distant starlight is an insurmountable problem for the young earth view, since obviously mathematics requires it! He doesn’t even attempt to engage with, or even show he knows about, any of the possible solutions that creationists have put forward to this conundrum. He also fails to mention that the Big Bang theory suffers from its own version of this same problem: the horizon problem.
Where did dino fossils come from?
He goes on to make a fleeting allusion in one statement to the question of how all the dinosaurs could have fit on the Ark. Even more shockingly, he seems to believe (spoken at around 35:00) that creation geologists think that dinosaur fossils are the remnants of the dinosaurs that survived the flood (rather than the ones killed by it)! He seems to have no understanding of the process of fossilization and how it requires catastrophic, watery conditions—exactly like what we would expect if there was a global flood as the Bible says.
A blatant strawman argument: the ‘deceptive god’
He attacks the strawman position that creationists believe God deceived us intentionally, in order to test our faith, by creating a universe that looks old (but is actually young). He actually refers to this as, “one of the most prominent explanations for a young earth.” Yet this is an anti-intellectual position that no informed creationist in modern times would ever put forth! In reality, there is a difference between God creating a deceptive appearance of age (which we do not believe) and God creating things with functional maturity.
Christians beware
Disappointingly, Walsh’s entire podcast on this topic comes off as a poorly-informed rant against a viewpoint he has never bothered to actually study. At no point does Walsh refer to the writings of any informed creationist, past or present. At no point does Walsh give even the slightest hint that he has taken the time to see what arguments informed creationists actually use, either scripturally or scientifically. This is why it is so important for people to get the word out about biblical creation, and get the works of creationists, like those of us here at CMI, into the hands of as many people as possible. If Walsh had been informed of the real evidence supporting biblical creation, then this disgraceful embarrassment of a podcast may never have happened.
We don’t want to seem overly negative here, but the point needs to be driven home: opponents of biblical creation are all too often guilty of this sort of ‘smear campaign’ tactic where our positions get mischaracterized and misunderstood. This rebuttal should not be interpreted as a personal attack against Mr. Walsh in any way, but we want to make faithful Christians aware of this challenge, and able to answer the sorts of questions that will be engendered by it, particularly as he is setting himself up as a teacher of God’s Word.
Related Articles
Further Reading
References and notes
- Walsh, M., Ep. 126 – Why I’m Not A Young Earth Creationist, dailywire.com, 18 October 2018. Return to text.
- See also: creation.com/semantic Return to text.
- Sarfati, J., Refuting Compromise, Creation Book Publishers, Powder Springs, GA., p.73. Return to text.
- See Ref. 2, pp. 86-87. Return to text.
- When a debater ‘hurls an elephant’ they mention an alleged huge quantity of evidence supporting their position without actually elaborating on any of it. Return to text.
Readers’ comments
Now I urge you brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned,
and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth
words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple.
CMI is a ministry focused specifically on the doctrine of creation. We acknowledge and hold to all of the Scriptures (the 66 books of the Bible), but our ministry focus is primarily on creation and related issues (thus our name, Creation Ministries International).
How do we know that we are right on these positions? Well, that is the point of our articles: to make that case. This is an important issue to the Christian faith, and that's why we do what we do.
Just to add a couple of thoughts:
i) If a "day" represents millions of years - what is a night?
ii) If the word day in v14 of Genesis 1 is not a literal day then "years" in that same verse must be meaningless.
When the Bible is meant to be taken as poetry or whatever else God tells us- you just need to see the context of the text and you should be clear. Moses could not have been any clearer in Genesis right from Chapter 1 verse 1 and only pride prevents these scholars from believing it
The word “creation” cannot refer to the creation of the world because God only created man on the sixth day at the very end of the creation of the world.
Contextually, “creation” refers to the creation of man. “The beginning of the creation” is a genetive of apposition. An accurate paraphrase would be “But from the beginning, that is, from the creation of humanity, God made them male and female.”
Citing this verse in defense of a young earth is grasping at straws.
I do not accept your paraphrase. The text does not limit itself in any way to the creation of mankind only--that is a limitation you are artificially imposing on the text, apparently in order to avoid the clear implication of a young earth. This term "creation" is a noun which is used all throughout the New Testament in reference to God's general creation (of everything).
The text does not say "the beginning of the creation of the world" (which is an addition to the text you have attempted to subtly slip in to the discussion here). It just says "the beginning of creation", which would indicate the beginning of all things. In the scope of many thousands of years, 6 days is not enough to justify disqualifying this as "from the beginning" (that would be grasping at straws!). On the other hand, many billions of years would certainly prevent this description from being accurate.
And the 'long agers' & 'deep timers' assume they have science and time on their side when more often than not it is mis information,bias & boldness by the bucket load. Nice to hear/see the other side of the story again from CMI dedicated to giving God the glory with good theological and scientific reason.
I remind Biblical Christians about your site all the time. I tell them please go there whenever you have a question about the latest "fake news" concerning "proofs" of evolution and/or supposed "old earth" science. I attended a local event where Dr. Sarfati (Maryland). His presentation was wonderful and it was over all too quickly. There many members of the CMI writing essays and articles on this site (old and new). I am very blessed by them. You are in my prayers.
Courage and Godspeed
I am sorry that Matt Walsh is not a Bible-believer but a "scoffer" that is mentioned in 2 Peter 3:3. God created time ("In the beginning" Genesis 1:1). On the sixth ( 24 hour) day from the beginning of that time God created Man (Adam & Eve) (Genesis 1:26-28). Jesus (God manifest in flesh : John 1:14, 1 Timothy 3:16) said that He created fully human mankind "from the beginning of creation" (Mark 10:6). No where can billions of years of time fit between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Not one Scripture in The Word of God (Holy Bible) supports the notion of a "gap" between these Scriptures. Genesis 1:1-31 gives us the historic account of Creation and tells us plainly that it took only six days for God to create from the beginning (Exodus 20:11). My hope and prayer for Matt Walsh that his eyes can be open to the truth of God's Word instead of man's word (philosophy) ( Colossians 2:8).
Sincerely in Christ,
Dale Stuckwish
Can Christians Believe Evolution?
Thank you for posting this response. Compromising Biblical teaching with secular world views is a dangerous path to go down, and this is what old age earth "interpretations" attempt to do. Unfortunately, this type of compromise is not without Biblical president as ancient Israel attempted to compromise worship of the true God with that of the paganism around them by combining the two. A practice that God took great exception with. I think that Christians today are heavily tempted to make similar compromises with evolutionary teaching. Thank you for taking the forefront on this.
2) It saddened me to see him belittle those with a young earth creation position. That in itself is stirring away from Christ's command to love each other, especially other brothers in Christ. This whole conversation/article has me excited to ramp up on my young earth biblical creation defenses! More importantly however, it makes me want to really make sure I'm not belittling someone whom with I'm sharing such things with. I've seen such behavior with Matt Slick over at CARM and sadly with, whom I greatly respect, Ken Ham and some things he's said about Bill Nye. We've got to really watch how we deliver a message that we remain Christ-like when we do. The world's watching and so is Father!
You folks do great work, blessings to you and your ministry!
Just a couple of thoughts:
i) If a "day" in Gen: 1 represents millions of years - what is a night?
ii) If the word day in Gen: 1 v 14 is not a literal day then years in the same verse must be meaningless
“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.” Matt 18.15
I hope that an approach to Mark has been made and an offer to show and explain some of the things addressed. I know it is hard to keep to the principal when much happens in public and access to the person may not be possible but please try to win him over rather than the argument.
Feel free not to print this comment for the same reasons, or to print it if you think it would be helpful.
When they reject out of hand competing theories like Intelligent Design or Specified Complexity, and merely dismiss them, labeling them "religion and not science." the general public, who doesn't think about it very much anyway, believes that I.D. and indeed, any theory that leaves room for God, has been weighed in the balances and found wanting!
In the public's mind, the competing theories have been objectively put to the test - and evolution won!
This is profoundly not the case. The reason the other side cannot allow a side by side comparison is because no criteria exists to show the data that would allow "X" to be shown as clearly from evolution, and most definitely, not from God.
What would the protocols, the standards, the criteria look like that would show it belonged to one source, and not another?
They don't have the criteria and cannot allow a side by side comparison. This explains why they must resort to censorship, bullying and intimidation. And why they cannot allow other views in the schools. The children are required to go to school. When only one view is allowed, it is the textbook definition of indoctrination and brainwashing. How much longer will they get away with it? Our website, [link deleted per feedback rules] offers many reasons to believe in God. What are the other sides reasons not to believe? Why because "science" (Here they mean evolution) Has "proved" no God. Give me a break! They wrote the books that they claim disproves God! And they wrote from the perspective that only the physical exists. And then use that to prove no God. And they are getting away with it. So far. How long, O Lord?
Matt Walsh has informed and entertained me for quite a while, and many of us are thankful for his pro-life arguments. However, he has been at odds with Bible-believing Christians and had "debates" on Twitter over his Roman Catholic beliefs. I suspect his worldview is the motivating factor in his prejudicial conjecture ("I know little about the topic, but I'm against it and will express opinions anyway") against biblical creation.
Further damage can come from Walsh's diatribe because old earthers, theistic evolutionists, atheists, and others who saddle up and ride for the Deny Biblical Authority brand will most likely be sharing his material as an attempt at refuting biblical creation.
(1) If we are to abide merely what Genesis 1 invokes,
(2) as most YEC's claim to do,
(3) Then there is no way to be SO sure what it means as to conclude that it surely must mean what YEC's say it must mean.
"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
He definite has been conformed to the secular humanist worldview of origins. Then pastes a God label on it. Wow!!! Very sad,,,and he is an apologist???? What a stumbling block for the church!!!!---Get behind me!!!
Would he be willing to invite Sarfati on the show to be educated regarding the scriptures and the forensic science on how to interpret the evidence from a scriptural historical perspective???? To be educated on what creation science really is.
Please ask him if he would be willing to learn what you are actually saying, and go point counter point with you, Then let us know if he is willing to truly "dialogue" with a creation scientist. - Wow- listening to his blog has been very painful......
Let me say....people make simple things so hard...my understanding, simple as it is, is this...GOD MADE TIME. HE CONTROLS IT. TIME DOES NOT CONTROL HIM. In HEAVEN, a day may be a 1000 years or just a day. Here, He made it so man could understand it...a day is 24 hours. No sinful natural man would live a whole day if it were a 1000 years! OMGosh...think of the wrinkles! (Sorry, had to add a little humor)
But remember what Paul wrote: "For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong." (1 Cor 1:26-27)
Don't let yourself get peer-pressured by the majority, who are unbelievers, into rejecting God's truth. Unfortunately many believers are also pressured into accepting compromise views that mingle truth with error. Jesus also said, "If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." (John 15:19)
Fact is, most millennials are enamored with science through the operational science which created the devices they use to communicate to the world with, through social media. Since, evolutionists conflate their faith based beliefs with every day, operational science many millennials quickly exchange Christianity for science assuming it is more credible.
Education is the key here and thank heavens that we have organizations like CMI to provide sound science framed correctly by pointing out that the real difference between evolution and Creationism is world view- not operational science. Walsh's world view has been exchanged for another religion. His lack of education on the issue is the result. Unfortunately, he is in a position to do much damage to other uninformed millennials.
Now we have Mr. Walsh who is supposed to be a major spokesperson for the Christian faith, I don't believe so. This is also only the beginning of him trying to take apart and cause doubt of The Word of God.This will have a bad effect (we have evidence of this already), w/the biggest example of this today of those who have no respect for God's Word now trying to convince the world that there is no such thing as male and female but that there are many genders and types.
I've always loved the sciences even in the days of my education attending a college prep school, being taught evolution as truth. I was not a believer in those days but I still remember sitting in class being taught evolution and thinking to myself something just does not make sense.
Now as the decades pass reading and meditating on The Word of God, and still studying biology, geology, zoology, etc...the only thing that makes sense and rings true is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
Hope you guys are allowed to keep informing all who would take the time to study your work until the day The Lord sets His Kingdom here on earth. The Lord has been more than fair in that not only has He left us His Word to teach "The Truth" but He has left us much in the way of physical evidence that His Word is True and literally set in stone. Keep up the good work.
Can Christians Believe Evolution?
Do We Hate Evolutionists?
Re: What about light before the sun?
I usually respond by quoting Revelation 22:5. "And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever." The light of God probably illuminated the earth before the sun. In the new heavens and new earth there will be no need for the sun.
Re: Do we reject science?
The notion of the earth being millions and billions of years old has nothing to do with the weight of any real empirical evidence. Charles Lyell, the father of modern geological uniformitarianism, in his “Principles of Geology” expressly set out to "free the science from Moses”. Thousands of feet of strata covering the earth with animals and plants buried in them is exactly what we see--and would expect to see--if a world-wide deluge occurred as described in Genesis. Lyell formalized a religious dogma of an ancient earth that attempted to explain these observations in terms of processes we see today with no need for a global flood. Modern man was all too willing to embrace this new uniformitarian religion that explained the world without a God who judges it.
Re:A blatant strawman argument: the ‘deceptive god’
Evolution is an attempt to explain the origin of all order and complexity in the universe without the need for a creator. If evolution is "God's method of creation" as theistic evolutionists believe, then how can God justify holding man accountable for seeing his divine nature in what was created (Romans 1:19-20) if he created things in such a way as to make it appear as if he never existed in the first place?
Paul's article was helpful and comprehensive and easily understood. I also appreciate that CMI doesn't require a doctorate for the author of articles they publish. There's hope for me yet.
I urge all evangelists and would-be contributors of articles to obey First Corinthians 14:9, "Unless you utter by the tongue speech easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken for you will be speaking into the air." PHD's beware. Uneducated people beware. Self beware.
I am surprised that so many of your correspondents assume that people will heed the scientific answers they give unbelievers. And how do they remember the scientific detail?
Oh for your magazine(s) in Japanese! I have two sons who interpret Japanese & English; they could translate CMI material. But they might just tell me to let them continue preaching the gospel. Let's be careful of over-exerting ourselves for the sake of rascals who disregard 'inconvenient' evidence. Note that Walsh seems to have ignored CMI almost entirely. I do it myself; it seems to work. Jesus said, "Don't throw your pearls in front of pigs." Finally from Jesus Himself: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation."
And I guarantee that is actually how theistic evolutionists mentally read it, by which they have immediately destroyed their own argument by using this verse to justify long evolutionary ages, because they are rightly reading the term ‘day’ to mean ‘solar day’. Any definition of the word ‘day’ other than ‘solar day’ here renders the statement meaningless. The statement itself is a simile, it is not defining the word ‘day’ to mean ‘a thousand years’.
Reassuringly though many of his readers pushed back in the comments section, stating that on this they strongly disagreed.
Hopefully Matt Walsh takes notice of that, and this article.
I have a relative who is very similar to Walsh, a well-known evangelical who has absolutely no grasp of basic science, language or history. He simply cannot hold a conversation defending the bible against modern or post-modern attacks.
With people like that, CMI can at least appeal to authority (in that you have been certified by the secular academia as experts in your own field). However, the problem of intellectual weakness is hard to overcome: how do you communicate with church people who can't be bothered to think things through?
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.