Why I'm inclined to believe (or at least want to PURSUE) an old-earth interpretation and disinclined to believe (or pursue) a young-earth interpretation

Oh, boy! "The other shoe."

I've written about why I'd prefer to believe--or at least pursue--a young-earth perspective. Now let me put the same question the other way around: Why bother with an old-earth interpretation of Scripture? And why prefer to stay away from a young-earth perspective?

Here are some of the things that come to mind in this regard.

I am inclined at least to pursue information about an old-earth perspective . . .

• Because I have found that the pursuit of information and insight from various extra-biblical sources (the physical sciences, the historical sciences, linguistics (including discourse analysis, historical linguistics, and sociolinguistics), anthropology and sociology, for example) has provided valuable information and insight for modern life. Old-earth creationists seem to agree with this assessment (while the major young-earth creationist advocates seem equivocal, at best, in their commitment to learning from these sources).
  
  I would like to pursue the best information and insights available at the current time and not assume that the information, insights and perspectives of people who have come before are "the final word."
  
• Because I believe in a virtuous cycle of interpretive input by and feedback between
  • Scripture and Scripture (which young- and old-earth creationist evangelicals both affirm).
  But also between . . .
  • Scripture and the physical sciences,
    
  • Scripture and the various historical sciences (from paleontology and archaeology, to historical linguistics, to standard, document-based historical research),
  And, even,
  
  • Scripture and anthropology and sociology.
  Old-earth creationists seem universally to agree in these matters: that Bible-believing Christians can and should seek interpretive input and mutually-correcting feedback from all these sources.
  
  By contrast, as demonstrated in previous posts (particularly this one and this one), most of the leading proponents of a young-earth creationist perspective deny the possibility of virtuous feedback by and between anything but Scripture and Scripture in the realm of the mode of creation, the age of the earth, and the real nature of the Flood of Noah.
  
• Because I want to evaluate as much evidence as possible of any and every type both for and against my preferred view . . . and I want to evaluate the best evidence (both for and against) presented in its strongest, most compelling manner. That means I want to "hear it from the horse's mouth" and not as it might be presented after having been predigested by someone who disagrees with that particular viewpoint.
  
  Sadly, from my experience, most young-earth creationist leaders prefer to maintain strict control over evidence for what they view as the opposition. This is what happened to Sonlight Curriculum with the Christian Home Educators of Colorado (CHEC); they took umbrage at Sonlight's use of books written by non-Christians that even discussed evolution . . . and so the leaders of CHEC denied Sonlight the opportunity to present its educational materials at the CHEC conferences.
  
  

  [EXCURSUS: Why would I want to "listen to the opposition" directly rather than from a predigested source?
  
  There are many reasons.
  
  For one, sadly, I have found that few opponents of an idea will give a really fair presentation of their opponents' views. They present their opponents' views in a way that makes these opponents' perspectives less compelling, interesting, believable, attractive than the opponents' own presentations would make them. Indeed, they often distort their opponents' views so much that the opponents' perspectives are mere strawman caricatures of what they really are.
  
  Unfair! And unhelpful to the student who wants to be fully prepared for a hardcore onslaught by someone coming from "the other side."
  
  It is only as I hear real protagonists for a viewpoint present their views that I can ascertain that view's real value and--more importantly--its potential appeal . . . not only to me, but to my students. When a viewpoint has been predigested, I have found, the appeal--or threat--becomes less urgent, less powerful, and I and, therefore, my students/disciples, too, will find ourselves caught off-guard when we actually confront someone who really believes whatever-it-is they are pushing.
  
  I don't want to be caught off-guard like that.]

Ultimately, the reason I am inclined to abandon pursuit of a young-earth perspective for the sake of pursuing an alternative perspective:

• Because I am inquisitive . . . and while the old-earth creationists seem similarly inquisitive, the young-earthers shut the door on all manner of inquiry--a behavior for which I can find no moral, ethical, biblical ground.
  
  What do I mean when I speak of shutting the door on inquiry?
  
  Consider:
  
  • Young-earth creationists speak in a manner that at least implies they agree with The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, Article XIX, when it says, "We affirm that any pre-understandings which the interpreter brings to Scripture should be in harmony with Scriptural teaching and subject to correction by it"; and, "We deny that Scripture should be required to fit alien pre-understandings."
    
    Still, in this particular area, concerning the manner and time of creation, at least, the young-earth creationists are unwilling to permit any evidence to be brought to bear that might show that they themselves may have brought a pre-understanding to the Scriptures and/or that they themselves may have attempted to require the Bible to fit an alien pre-understanding of their choosing.
    
    "No!" they say. "We have a thorough, incontrovertible, incontestable understanding of what the Scriptures mean. We know the truth absolutely, without question, without need at any time for modification based on any evidence, Scriptural or extra-Scriptural, than that which we have already collected." No discussion. Case closed. (See Articles I and V of the Articles of Faith of the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches for similar declarations. --And see this post for additional commentary on this problem.)
    
  • Playing off of Job 38:4, Ken Ham is fond of asking, "Were you there?" of those who question his young-earth creationist views. "God was there," he notes. So "[w]hy would any Christian want to take man’s fallible dating methods and use them to impose an idea on the infallible Word of God? Christians who accept billions of years are in essence saying that man’s word is infallible, but God’s Word is fallible!"
    
    Answer: I am not interested in taking a fallible dating method and imposing it on God's Word. But I am interested in taking the latest fallible dating methods and insights in conjunction with the best (still fallible!) biblical interpretive methods and permitting them both to provide insights into how I might best interpret God's Word.
    
  • Dr. Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International attempts to distinguish "magisterial" from "ministerial" science:
    

    Creationists have nothing against science being used ministerially, i.e. to build on the framework provided by the propositional teachings of Scripture, e.g. to build models to help elucidate Scripture (that is, flesh out details where Scripture is silent) or to decide where the text is equivocal. What we object to is using science magisterially to override what the text plainly teaches. For example, we object to using ‘science’ to deny a global Flood at the time of Noah, because the Bible clearly teaches this. However, we use true science to attempt to figure out the pre-Flood/Flood boundary or the Flood/post-Flood boundary in the geological record; and in the process we gain greater insight into the nature of this divine judgment. Similarly, we do not let ‘science’ explain away the literal days of creation or the order of creation (e.g. plants appeared before sea creatures and birds appeared before land animals). But we use solid biological science to better understand what God meant when He said that He created the plants and animals to reproduce ‘after their kind.’

    I'm afraid the distinction between "magisterial" and "ministerial" science is completely opaque to me . . . and, I expect, to everyone else except those like Sarfati, Ham, and others, who want to hold a sword of judgment over the necks of those with whom they seek to disagree on supposedly biblical grounds.
    
    Sarfati says we can distinguish what Scripture "clearly" or "plainly" teaches from "where Scripture is silent" and "where the text is equivocal."
    
    But that, at root, is the problem, isn't it? Your "plain" may be my "equivocal" (and vice versa). That's what leads to the development of differing theologies, isn't it--why some of us believe in adults-only baptism, while others urge that infants, too, not only "may" but really "ought" to be baptized? And that's why we hold different eschatological positions as well, isn't it (premillennial, amillennial, postmillennial, etc.)? And why some of us are hard-core pacifists, while others believe it is their God-required duty to serve in and to support their governments' military services. . . . And so on and so forth.
    

    [EXCURSUS: And that's why--despite whatever else we may want to say against the teachings of Peter Enns (and I am deeply concerned about some of his teachings!)--I disagree with Dr. Georgia Purdom of Answers in Genesis when, on March 16, 2011, at 8:03 am, she complains on her Facebook page about the last slide in a presentation Enns makes that says, "Theology is provisional." (I don't normally follow Purdom, but Ken Ham blogged about her post with approval. And at that particular time, due to some issues rising in homeschool circles about Mr. Ham, I "happened" to see his comment and follow through to Purdom's page.)
    
    I should hope our theology is provisional! I should hope we are willing to consider new data--whether from Scripture or from other sources--that might cause us to modify our opinions.
    
    No, let us not modify or tinker with the data itself. But let us--please!--be open to collecting all the evidence we can find--evidence that may speak well of or speak against our preferred opinions. And let us also--please!--be open to modifying our personal syntheses of the data!
    
    That's the whole point of my posts about Understanding the Bible: Can we just read it? Or do we need to interpret it? and God or science? God or man?]

    As I quoted Tas Walker of Answers in Genesis:
    

    The Bible clearly teaches that the world is young. If it taught that the world was millions of years old then we would be OEC. However, the concept of millions of years of death and suffering destroys the authority of the Word of God and destroys the foundation of the gospel. I could develop this more, and will if you like, but the conclusion is that the world is young as described in the Bible.
    
    So, now that we have established that the world is young (6000 years), we are ready to come to the evidence.

    And that, in essence, is one of the root causes for my disinclination to pursue a young-earth interpretation of the Bible: the young-earthers want to declare the Bible as somehow beyond evidence, before evidence. "Having established that the world is young, now we are ready to come to the evidence." (???!!!)
    
    The young-earthers want to pull rank and declare that the matter of the method and time of creation requires no interpretation at all but is, rather, plain and indisputable. And anyone who dares to look at evidence that tends to controvert their opinions, and, most definitely, anyone who questions them is--at the core of his or her being (not just by way of action happening to compromise, but, at the very core of his or her being)--a "compromiser" or "biblioskeptic." (???!!!???)
    
    I don't see any biblical (or extra-biblical) grounds for this kind of prejudgment on the young-earthers' part. And so I am inclined at least to pursue evidence that members of "the opposition" (i.e., evidence that old-earth creationists) want to bring to the table--Scriptural, scientific, historical, or whatever. . . .

Finally, I am inclined to pursue an old-earth interpretation and disinclined to pursue a young-earth perspective . . .

• Because I want the freedom--and I want to offer my brothers and sisters in Christ the freedom--at least to explore the possibilities of alternative interpretations, to talk about the evidence both pro and con, without fear of being charged with compromise or biblioskepticism, solely on the grounds that I (or they) have been exploring or discussing the evidence.