Recently, Dr. F. Oosterhoff, who writes at www.reformedacademic.blogspot.com, has published a paper entitled, "Teaching Evolution at Our Schools: Why and How." It is available here:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/9/2397423/Oosterhoff%202009%20Teaching%20Evolution.pdf

In this post, I will respond only to one paragraph in Dr. Oosterhoff's paper, because the point made in this paragraph has been made several times on her blog, because I find the argument specious, and because, since I am involved in 'evangelistic outreach,' her claims hit close to home. Dr Oosterhoff writes:

In addition, there is the matter of our evangelistic outreach. Promoting young-earth creationism as the only acceptable way of reading Genesis is not only dangerous for our students but also for our missionary and evangelistic efforts. How many secular scientists, indeed how many unchurched people in general, even uneducated ones, will take our message seriously if we come across as obscurantists? If they see us denying what can be seen, how can they accept our testimony about unseen things? It is not surprising that a former apologist like C.S. Lewis and a contemporary one like Tim Keller have refused to associate themselves with young-earth creationism. Let's also not forget that, by taking modern scholarship seriously, Bible-believing Christians will be in a much better position to join the discussion about the limitations of science, and about the difference between science proper and unwarranted scientific interpretations.

As those of you who read my blog regularly know, I am a missionary working in the largest urban centre in Northern British Columbia. Prince George is home to the University of Northern British Columbia, and while this city is still largely 'blue-collar,' there is a high percentage of 'well-educated' people in our population. Currently, around forty-five people attend Sunday worship and a class in Reformed doctrine, twenty people attend a Sunday evening Bible study, and we have recently begun a youth program for around twenty young people from our community. I am also a volunteer chaplain at the local university, where I do not hesitate to state my disagreement with 'old-earth' points of view.

Among those who are active participants in our ministry, we have someone who recently graduated from university with a double major in physics and chemistry, several other university students, a meteorologist, someone with a university degree in biology, as well as a number of highly intelligent, discerning, and, to use the word Dr. Oosterhoff uses, 'uneducated' people.

I have made it clear in my past writings here that I am a 'young-earth' creationist. I take modern scholarship seriously, and that has led me to find much of modern scholarship seriously evil, and a tool of the evil one to promote unbelief and to give unbelievers yet another convenient excuse for rejecting the clear teaching of Scripture. The Bible teaches creation in six days, the confessions support that teaching, and I am sworn to uphold Scripture and the confessions. Therefore, when I teach on creation, I teach that God created the world in the way He explained it to us, in six days.

Has my dogmatic adherence to six-day, 'young-earth creationism' proven dangerous to my evangelistic efforts?

To be brief, no.

Is the Bible's teaching on creation (in six days, by the very word of God, not nearly as long ago as many of today's scientists believe) a hindrance to the spread of the gospel? Perhaps, but only as a subset of the biggest hindrance to the acceptance of the gospel: a refusal to believe and submit, a proud confidence in the human intellect, intellectual arrogance, and a lack of humility. Consider the following:

1. We believe that man is sinful, God is holy, and we are in need of a perfect Saviour to get back into a right relationship with that holy God. Unless we have faith in this Saviour, we will spend eternity under the wrath of God.

2. We believe that a man named Jesus was born in Palestine around two thousand years ago. This man was born despite the fact that his mother had never had sexual relations with any man.

3. We believe that in the first of his signs, this man changed water into wine, immediately, in a miraculous way. Not only was it wine, it was really good wine.

4. Furthermore, we believe that this man not only healed the sick, he also walked on water, had control over the 'forces of nature,' and cast out demons.

5. What's more, we believe that this man was killed, but on the third day he rose from the dead.

6. And then, after he rose from the dead, he appeared to his disciples, and ascended into heaven in their presence.

7. Finally, we believe that all of these things that Jesus accomplished and lived are still meaningful for people today, and that, by faith in this Jesus, we can be restored to life in fellowship with the Creator God.

And you think believing in a 'young earth' and six days of creation is a hindrance to the spread of the gospel???

1. Many people I meet believe there is no such thing as sin. If they believe in sin, they don't take it seriously. If they believe in God, they don't believe his holiness should make the existence of a place of eternal torment necessary, and they believe that 'good people' will make it to heaven. Sin, punishment, wrath, and hell. Now there are some hindrances to the spread of the gospel!

2. Many people I meet believe the idea of a virgin birth is simply absurd, the product of an ancient mythology.

3. Many people I meet believe that the miracles might or might not have happened, but these miracles have nothing to say to us today.

4. Many people I meet believe that all of these stories were simply made up by the disciples.

5. Rose from the dead? Give me a break. That's impossible!

6. Etc.

7. Etc.

What's the biggest hindrance to the spread of the gospel? The cross of Christ. Foolishness to the Greeks, a stumbling block to the Jews... in comparison with the foolishness of the cross, the six days of creation is a drop in the bucket.