Jason Lisle & Hugh Ross: Young Earth vs. Old Earth Creationism

All right, welcome back to Revealed Apologetics, and I say welcome back because we had a test live stream yesterday where I did some Q &A on the topic of apologetics, and those who were listening in had some excellent questions, but welcome back.

I'm very excited about this specific episode because this has been a very highly anticipated episode. So today I have two astrophysicists, a Christian apologist, and Bible-believing Christians who come on completely different ends on a very important question.

Of course, they do share a lot of common beliefs as well, but we're going to be talking about the creation debate, the old-Earth creationist view and the young-Earth creationist view. And so I figured that having someone like Dr. Hugh Ross on and Dr. Jason Lyle, these are two excellent proponents of each respective position, to be able to lay out their explanations and defenses as to why they believe what they believe with regards to this question.

So I'm very much looking forward to this discussion. Now, as those who have followed my channel before, you've heard me say this in various contexts, I am agnostic with regards to this question. I'm totally not a theistic evolutionist, so that's not on the table for me, but young-Earth and old-Earth, those interpretations and those particular views, I kind of go back and forth.

Let me see. I have Jason Lyle's books. I don't have Jason's book with me here, so I do apologize, but I do have Hugh's book, Why the Universe is the Way That It Is. That's not fair. There we go. Here's a Jason Lyle book, excellent book on logic.

But of course he has his very well-known book, The Ultimate Proof for Creation, where he goes into some presuppositional apologetics and of course, young-Earth creationism as well in there. And I think I have his Creation, Something or Other and Beyond, or something like that.

Excellent book. I'm sure you guys can check out their material on Amazon and their respective websites. But today I want to welcome Dr. Ross and Dr. Lyle. I'm going to invite them on to share the screen with me right now, and there they are.

And I'm super excited. And I think we're going to be very, very educated in this episode as we're going to learn from folks who obviously have done a lot of study in this area and have very strong views with respect to this topic.

So why don't we take a brief couple of moments here for Dr. Lyle to briefly introduce himself, Dr. Ross to briefly introduce himself, and then we'll get started. So Dr. Lyle, why don't you say a little something to the audience listening?

Jason Lyle’s View of Scripture, Genesis, and Six-Day Creation

Okay. I'm Jason Lyle.

I'm an astrophysicist. I got my PhD from the University of Colorado in Boulder in physics and astronomy, astrophysics. And then I have now started the Biblical Science Institute, which is a Christian apologetics ministry that helps people to see that science is not antagonistic to the Bible, but that science when it's properly understood, confirms what the Bible teaches.

And I do have a heavy emphasis on defending Genesis, a literal historical Genesis that God really created in six days, supernaturally, that sin really entered the world through Adam, and so on.

Well thank you for that. Dr. Ross, how about you share a little bit about yourself?

Well, I'm an astrophysicist as well. I got my PhD at the University of Toronto and then did postdoctoral research at Caltech for five years on galaxies and quasars. And shortly after that, founded the organization, Reasons to Believe, we're a group of research scientists that study the frontiers of scientific research and develop new evidences for the truth of the Bible and what the Bible says about creation.

All right, very good. Now I guess my first question to kind of just open up the discussion is, why don't you just lay out in summary form, Dr. Lyle first and then Dr. Ross, why don't you summarize briefly just the gist of your position?

So obviously people who are familiar with you are going to know your positions, but for our purposes here, why don't we just briefly lay out, here's my view, here's my view, and then we'll dive into some of what I think are important questions, and again, which are going to get into some of the disagreements between the both of you.

So Dr. Lyle, why don't you share a brief summary of your position with regards to the question of young earth creationism?

Okay. I have a high view of scripture. I believe that scripture is the inerrant word of God in the original manuscripts. People complain we don't have the original manuscripts, but we have very, very reliable copies, so that's not really an issue.

I do believe in the perspicuity of scripture, that the Bible is basically clear in what it intends to communicate. It's not a puzzle that we have to try and solve and get all these different parts to really understand what it means.

It's clear. That's not to say there aren't any difficult sections. The Bible itself says there are some difficult sections, but I think that's more in terms of accepting what it has to say than understanding what it has to say.

There's a difference between those two, and I believe in the grammatical historical approach to interpretation, to hermeneutics. How we read the Bible should be based on the grammar of the passage, given the historical context, and generally the historical context is given by the Bible itself.

The Bible is primarily a history book, and so it tells us the history of the beginning of the world. It focuses in primarily on the history of Israel and so on as God's chosen people in the Old Testament and so on.

And so I believe that when you combine those three things, the inerrancy of Scripture, the perspicuity of Scripture and the grammatical historical approach, when you then read Genesis, you come to the conclusion that God really made in six days, each of those defined as an earth rotation bound by an evening and a morning.

And that is, in fact, the basis for our work week. And so in Exodus 20, beginning in verse eight, where we remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy and on six days you're doing your labor, the seventh is the Lord's, then God gives the explanation for why in verse 11, we work six days and rest one.

We have a seven day week because God worked in six days and rested one. He uses the same word for days there, yamim, which always means days, yamim is the plural form of yom. And so it's very clear that God created six ordinary days.

He did that for our benefit. He could have created the universe in an instant. He had the power to do that. He really slowed himself down to make in six days. Then he rested one again as a pattern for us.

And in my mind, the importance of the issue is not so much about a specific date. You know, somebody says, well, I think it's maybe 5 ,000 years instead of 4 ,000 because of the whatever reason, maybe they're using the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic text.

And that's fine. There's legitimate debates on those kind of issues. But in my mind, the issue here is, is the Bible inerrant and perspicuous? And what is the apologetic or the hermeneutical approach that we should use to scripture and then the theology that follows from it?

Namely, I would suggest that all Christian doctrines, maybe we can go to this detail in more detail later, but I would suggest that all major Christian doctrines are based on historical grammatical reading of Genesis, where God really did make in six days.

Death really did enter the world as a result of Adam's sin. There really was a global flood and that these are foundational issues to the Christian.

Worldview. All right.

Very good. That's a good, good summary there. I think you covered a lot of ground there. Dr. Ross, why don't you lay out your position for us, please?

Well, I hold to all the affirmations and denials of the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy and likewise all our affirmations and denials on hermeneutics. So I actually require all of our staff scholars at Reasons to Believe to sign.

And with respect to, I believe that Genesis is historical, it's chronological. You know, I'm not a theistic evolutionist and I don't believe that we should be taking those texts figuratively. I think there's plenty within the text that tells us they should be read literally, historically and chronologically.

However, I do believe that these creation days, I actually sign a statement that I believe that God created in six literal days. But the Hebrew word for day has four distinct literal definitions, one of which includes a long period of time.

And the thing that struck me when I first looked at the Bible at age 17, before I became a Christian, is that this word day just in the first page is used with three different definitions. I mean, creation day one is contrasting days and nights.

That's day for the daylight hours. Creation day four is contrasting seasons, days and years. That's day for 24 hours. But Genesis 2 .4 uses the word day for a long period of time, namely for all the creation activity that God performed with the universe and the earth.

And just noticing that there's no evening and morning for the seventh day and that there's three texts in the Bible that are explicitly or implicitly tell us we're still in God's seventh day, tells me at least the seventh day is a long period of time.

We're still in it. And as a young scientist that said, now I understand why so many in the life sciences say we see no scientific evidence for God and why so many of us in the physical sciences say we see evidence for God everywhere.

For six days, God creates and the seventh day stops creating. So if you're doing your scientific research on the human era, which is typical for most in the life sciences, all you're going to see is a natural process.

But if you're looking before the human era, this is when God is actively creating. So this explains why so many of us in the physical sciences believe in God as a creator and why you don't see quite as many in the life sciences.

And in terms of a flood, I believe the flood was universal to all of humanity, all the animals associated with them. I mean, second Peter two, it's the world of the ungodly that God flooded and second Peter three, six, the world that existed at that time.

The very fact that we see Peter qualifying the Greek word cosmos tells us he's not referring to the entire planet, but he's referring to the entire region of the earth where human beings lived. So I don't believe that God necessarily flooded Antarctica, but he certainly wiped out all the places on the earth where human beings lived.

OK, now you said something interesting here, you said that there are multiple literal meanings for the word Yom. Now, when people talk about young earth creationism, they often associate young earth creationism with the literal interpretation.

I'm sure you're familiar with that kind of terminology. My question, I guess, for Dr. Lyle, with respect to what you just said. Dr. Lyle, do you think Dr. Ross's interpretation is a legitimate, not that you think it's true, but it's legitimate for him to say this is the literal interpretation so that it's really an issue of one's literal interpretation versus another person's literal interpretation of which the context is going to determine who's using the proper literal terminology.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, I would say not. I would say that literal the word literal means the ordinary everyday usage of a word. And if you do a search in scripture, you'll find that the ordinary everyday usage of the word Yom is day.

It's not it's not generally used to mean a long period of time. It is occasionally, but that is almost always in the poetic literature where we would expect non-literal uses. And so, for example, the day of the Lord, I think that does refer to a period of time longer than 24 hours, but it's it's qualified.

It's part of a figure of speech and it's primarily in the places like the Psalms or the the the prophetic literature, which tends to be written in a poetic fashion. It uses the Hebrew parallelism. And so that's what you'll tend to find with that, whereas the literal meaning of day would be day.

And it's the same with our English word for day. Our English word for day can mean a period of time. And so you might say back in my father's day, you know, I don't mean 24 hours. I mean, a period of time longer than that.

That's perfectly legitimate, but it's not literal. I'm using it somewhat metaphorically there. And I don't think that and Hugh, I don't think you should be ashamed to say that some sections of the Bible are non-literal because I think we would both agree on that.

It's just we need to decide which parts are literal and which are not. And even within historical narrative, you can have occasional figures of speech. So the question is, is that what we find in Genesis?

And I would say, no, I would say that the word yom is actually very tightly constrained in Genesis because God is using it specifically to mean either either the light portion of a day, as you pointed out, or a 24 hour day.

But it's never used as a period of time, not in Genesis. Now, in poetic literature, occasionally.

How about Genesis 2, 4 is definitely used there for a significant period of time.

Well, not necessarily, not necessarily because that could be referring to in the day. That could be the day God created. It wouldn't have to be the period of time. It could be it could be referring to that first day.

But but in the day, by the way, it's a little different there. I don't know if you know this. In Hebrew, when you attach, it's actually a different form of the word. It's actually beyond beyond. And beyond is often used to mean when.

And so it's not just yom, it's beyond. It's a little different. And that can mean when. So if you wanted to take Genesis 2, 4 as beyond, it's not yom, it's beyond as meaning when. I'm OK with that. That's fine.

Dr. Lyle, I have a question based upon Dr. Lyle's definition of the term literal, and I want to see if you agree with that. But why don't you speak to what he just said there and then we'll go from there.

Well, I've actually consulted with a number of theologians that are very fluent in Hebrew, both young earth and old earth. And all of them tell me that, indeed, a long period of time is a literal usage of the word yom.

I mean, we need to understand. I think it helps to understand that this is primarily an English language debate. And it's because you're dealing with translating from biblical Hebrew, a very small vocabulary language into an extremely large vocabulary language.

And isn't just the Hebrew word yom. Virtually every Hebrew noun has multiple literal definitions. The word arrest for earth in Genesis 1 has five distinct literal definitions. And this is typical of a language that has a very small vocabulary size.

The words must have multiple literal definitions because they don't have millions of words like we have in English. So that's why it's important to actually take advantage of lexical aids. But every Hebrew English lexicon I've ever looked at explicitly states there are four distinct literal definitions of the word yom.

And so it really is a literal interpretation versus a literal interpretation.

Now, real quick. So, Dr. Lau, can you define literal the way you defined it before, if you remember your wording? And then I want to see if Dr. Ross agrees with your definition of what it means to interpret something literally.

Literal is the ordinary, everyday meaning of a term.

All right, Dr. Ross, would you agree that that's what literal means?

No, I would not, because there's multiple words where we have several distinct definitions that we could use. And this is even true in the English language, although to a much lesser degree than it is in biblical Hebrew.

And so there could be more than one literal definition for words. That's true in all languages.

Well, Hugh, I never said otherwise. I didn't say there couldn't be more than one literal definition, but they would all have to be ordinary, everyday usage. And so the day is a period of daylight. We use that every day.

And day is a rotation of Earth's axis. We use that every day. You say back in my father's day, that's a little less common. And I'll grant that the line is blurry. How common does something have to be to fall into the literal category?

But just because something has a definition doesn't make it a literal definition. There are many words in the English language that have common uses and they have more rare uses. The common uses I would call literal, the rare uses I would call metaphoric.

Yeah, but that's not how linguists treat language. I mean, it's not the most common literal definitions. That's the only literal definition. I don't know of any linguists that would accept that.

Well, Stephen Boyd, for example, his Ph .D. is in Hebrew. He would say that the long period of time definition of Yom is a non-literal definition. I'm sure he would call that metaphoric. Or Jim Johnson, who's also got a Ph .D. and he's a Hebrew expert as well.

So those are a couple of examples of people who would disagree with you on that. But I think what we're having here is not a real debate. It's a semantic debate about what the word literal means. And so the real issue is what does the word Yom mean in the context of Genesis?

And so if you want to use a non-literal definition of the word literal, that's fine. But we're going to we're using different terminology there.

Yeah. See, that's where we disagree. I insist that I am using a literal reading. And yeah, many of your Young Earth colleagues totally agree with me on this. And I've been to Dallas Theological Seminary.

All the Young Earth creationist theologians there accept the fact that Yom and D could be taken as a literal definition of a long period of time. So I don't see this as a controversial issue.

Now, let's grant, OK, so it's a possible literal interpretation now for me, as I said before, I'm agnostic with regards to this. When I was I grew up in church. I grew up since I was I was born. My earliest memory has been in church and I've read a Genesis countless times.

Now, I have to say, without taking a position one way or the other, I do have to admit that without being influenced by others as well, because my church really never talked about these these points in any detail when I did read the creation account, it did seem that what's being referred to there are just days as an average person would understand that.

How would you speak to that, Dr. Ross? It does. I mean, I know that I've heard your story where when you read it, you knew automatically, no, there's more going on here. It's not a 24 hour day necessarily.

But a lot of people who read it, it seems that, hey, yeah, it kind of seems straightforward. How can you speak to the straight, the apparent straightforwardness of.

It all? Well, you know, looking at the fact that we had the first six days bracketed by the evening and the morning and likewise the Hebrew words there of multiple literal definitions. But I knew at a minimum it was actually declaring each of these creation days as a definite start point and a definite end point.

And excuse me, I'm going to disconnect that phone.

Hang on. That better be Jesus calling. No, I'm just kidding. All right. Very interesting. By the way, while Dr. Ross is doing that, a couple quick announcements on July 16th, I'll be having Frank Turek on to discuss issues related to his book Stealing from God, which I hope he doesn't watch this.

But I love the book and I endorse the book. But it sounds like more from Stealing from Bonson. But he's almost presuppositional in that book. And I think it's still very helpful to talk about. Also, Dr. James Anderson will be on tomorrow to talk about the key differences between presuppositional methodology and classical methodology.

And then on July 29th, we have Greg Cokel on to talk a little bit about strategies and navigating conversations with unbelievers. So definitely check those things out. If you haven't already, please subscribe to the Revealed Apologetics YouTube channel and click the notification button so that you guys are up on these interviews and discussions when they come.

All right. Let's continue with our discussion there.

OK, I forgot where I left off, but I did disconnect the landline. So no Mandarin interference.

No worries. No worries. Well, let me let me move on. Here is my question. I said something to the effect that when you read Genesis one, I know that you read it and knew that this isn't this isn't speaking about literal, you know, 24 hour days.

But I was kind of asking along the lines of the average person that I mean, I've been in the church life. I've been in the church game, so to speak, my entire life. And everyone that reads the Genesis account that I've encountered seem to think that, yeah, these are God created in six days and days seem to be talking about days as as we as we would know it.

And so you kind of were speaking to that. Yes. Well, I mean, I was not raised in a Christian home, but at age 16, because of my astronomy, I was persuaded that there had to be a God and actually began a search of the world's different holy books.

So I'd open up the Bible. I was quite prepared to say, hey, you know, this isn't God's word. In fact, I didn't think God was communicating to his writing. But when I looked at the text, I was expecting that these days would be 24 hours, but that there would be an evening and a morning for the seventh day.

The fact that I didn't see an evening in the morning for the seventh day says, OK, these first six days have got a definite start point and a definite end point. But we don't see that for day seven. So obviously it began because God's resting.

So I went through the rest of the Bible and found passages that declared we're still in God's seventh day. And also, as I looked at Genesis chapter two, I noticed that there was a passage of time between God creating Adam and God creating Eve.

I mean, Adam went through three careers before Eve shows up. And yet when you go to Genesis one, it says that God created both the human male and the human female on the sixth day. So I says that means the sixth day has to be a long period of time, just like the seventh day.

Then looking at the grammatical structure of Genesis one, it told me we're looking at six consecutive long periods of time for God creating.

The Meaning of Yom and the Length of the Creation Days

Now, a question, I guess, for Dr. Lyle, you mentioned, Dr. Ross, the seventh day seems and again, even when I was reading the scriptures at this point, they did seem like 24 hour days. I mean, when I was reading it, but even back then, the seventh day did seem unique.

And when I even study this issue now, as I'm not swayed one way or the other, I kind of see that the seventh day seems to indicate that there's a little more going on. How would you speak to the seventh day with regards to, you know, there's no closure, it seems.

And then in the book of Hebrews, there seems to be a suggestion that the seventh day is kind of still going on so that there's kind of a broader theological understanding of the seventh day. How would you understand that, Dr.

Lyle? Well, first of all, it is an argument from silence to argue that there's no evening and morning on the seventh day, merely because they're not mentioned. Just because something isn't mentioned in scripture doesn't mean it never happened.

The Bible never mentions Adam going to the bathroom, but I think we can assume that he probably did from time to time. And he apologized. You get my drift. I'm just making a claim to the obvious. But in any case.

So, of course, there was an evening and morning the seventh day. They're not mentioned. Why? The seventh day is different. It's special. It's the day that God blessed and hallowed. It's not a day of creation.

It's a day of rest. And so it is different qualitatively. And God is allowed to select it out and make it qualitative. And by the way, it seems a little bit, I don't know, inconsistent to me to say, well, the seventh day could be long because it doesn't have that evening in the morning.

But the other days do, which would implicitly imply that they that they are ordinary days. They are bound by an evening in the morning. And with regard to what Hebrews says about God's rest, God's rest is continuing.

It doesn't mean the day continues. If I said I worked all day Wednesday, all day Thursday, all day Friday, and then I took a rest on Saturday and I'm still resting today. That doesn't mean that today is Saturday.

My rest can continue beyond the day. But the reason we know that the days in Genesis are ordinary is because God specifies what they mean. They're bound. They are defined in terms of having one evening and one morning.

That's what makes one day. So Genesis is Genesis one is very clear about that. And all the days of creation do have that evening and morning. It's just not mentioned for the seventh day, but the numbers there and having a number with the day in a narrative sequence like that is indicative of ordinary days.

So you would say it's safe to assume that because days one through six had evening, morning, evening, morning, evening, morning, morning, that it's safe to assume, well, there's no reason to think the seventh day didn't have that just because it's not mentioned.

And you probably are thinking and maybe Dr. Ross can respond. You're probably thinking that the old earth interpretation that wants to leave this possibility open is kind of looking for a kind of a possible interpretive loophole to allow for a longer period of time.

Is that what you think, Dr. Lyle? And maybe Dr. Ross could respond to why that's not the case.

I do think that and I'll say this is a vice that's common to all Christians. I'm not immune from this. We all have a tendency to have this worldview that we take to the Bible and then try to interpret the Bible according to that worldview.

And it takes a great deal of work to not do that. And God gave us the church so that we could challenge each other and say, look, brother, here's how I read the scripture. How do you read it? So that we can challenge each other to make sure that we're not doing that.

And I would suggest with all respect to my brother, Hugh, that because he had a Big Bang philosophy before he ever read the Bible, that he imported that into the Bible. And I think it's very hard to to not do that.

But it's something we all need to work as Christians to challenge each other to not do to read the Bible exegetically rather than exegetically.

So is that what you're doing, Dr. Ross? Are you trying to squeeze Big Bang cosmology into the Bible? You sneaky man, you.

Is that what you're trying to do? Well, I didn't see Big Bang cosmology in the Bible, but not in Genesis, other than the fact that it speaks about the fact that there's a beginning to the universe. OK, one of the components of Big Bang cosmology.

But I was looking at the text before I was a believer, and so I didn't have any vested commitment in this. I mean, if it was 24 hours or a long period of time, I could go either way. But reading the text, it says it seems very clear these days are significant passages of time.

I mean, I looked at the evening and morning as simply a reference to the fact, OK, each day has a start point and an end point. And but we don't see an end point for creation day seven. We don't find it anywhere in the Bible.

We do see it hinted at in Revelation. We come to the new creation. God's rest will end. He will create again. But this is the period of time in which we're in and when God is not creating. And again, as a young scientist, I said, OK, I think that explains why we see this demarcation between people in the physical sciences and those in the life sciences.

They're looking at different periods of time.

Science, Revelation, and the Interpretation of Genesis

Yeah. Now, when we're talking about this, it's very difficult because we live in a very scientific age, not that everyone is scientifically educated, but science looms very large in the background and it has the potential to affect how we look at things.

As you both of you know, that while both of you will deny that you're trying to squeeze scientific interpretation so as to kind of make it consistent with the Bible, there is that looming influence that's always creeping behind every shadow as we're trying to bring the Bible to a point of relevancy to what's going on in the modern world.

So there's definitely a temptation there. But of course, you guys would deny that that's what you're trying to do. But because science plays a large role as moderns coming to the text, what do you think?

And from both of you, maybe Dr. Ross first and then Dr. Lyle, what role should science play when we're looking into these issues, especially with the length of the days and how we interpret Genesis? What's the relationship there as you see it, Dr.

Ross? Well, again, I came at the text before I was a believer. It's like, OK, what I see in the universe is a God where everything is harmonious. Everything fits together. I don't see contradictions. I see an appeal to elegance and beauty.

And so I said of all these different holy books I'm looking at, I was looking at the Vedas, the Koran, the Buddhist commentaries, Baha 'i, et cetera. I said, which of these actually matches the revelation I see in the record of nature?

Which one gets the history right? Which one gets the science right? Which one gets the geography right? And I quickly recognized that was not the case for the Hindu Vedas. It's got it's still like this.

I mean, Jason and I would agree on is that it doesn't match what we see in future history and science. And this is what really impressed me about the Bible. I saw that it had predictive power. It had the power to predict with accuracy future historical events in terms of what was happening with human beings.

It also had the power to predict future scientific discoveries. And the fact that it did so without error, I said this can't just be inspired by human beings. This has to be inspired by the one that actually did all the deeds, the one who actually has control over space and time.

And so after two years studying the Bible, I signed my name on the back of a Gideon Bible saying this is the word of God. And it gave my life to Jesus Christ. Hmm. Dr.

Lyle, do you have anything to say to that? And then we're going to move on to the issue of why I want to talk a little bit about these two books that you often talk about, Dr. Ross, the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture.

And I want to see if you guys agree on that. I want to see what your perspective is on that. Maybe we can move on to a little bit of your scientific reasons for affirming or at least not reasons for affirming, but your scientific.

Evidences to support your position in a way that's consistent with your biblical interpretation as well. So so, Dr. Lyle, is there anything you want to say to what Dr. Ross has just shared there with with regards to the relationship between science and the Bible and coming to this question?

I think it's very interesting the way you that you that you came to to scripture because it basically it's in your mind, science supported it. And my approach is a little different because in my view, we don't take the Bible and then and say this is this is very likely the word of God or maybe it is the word of God because it lines up with all this scientific evidence.

I would say the Bible is the foundation by which I have confidence in science. So that's that's the difference. Rather than science being the standard by which I know the Bible is true, I would say the Bible is the standard by which I can have some confidence in the scientific method and perhaps even some of the conclusions that scientists draw, although although those are fallible.

With regard to your original question, Eli, I would say that I believe in the ministerial role of science in interpretation, but not a magisterial role, which is to say that if there are issues where the Bible is genuinely silent, maybe some matters of history where the details are not recorded, it is appropriate for us to use science to make a guess, providing we don't elevate that guess to the level of scripture is perfectly fine.

But I would say it's not acceptable to use science or man's understanding, I guess, of of the evidence, which is which is one definition of science to override the clear teaching of the scripture. And so, for example, it is it is generally a very good scientific principle that dead men stay dead.

That is something that we have repeated observations of. And yet the Bible says there have been a few cases where that is not the case, where people have been raised from the dead. And I would say, well, in that case, that scientific conclusion is wrong, or at least it doesn't hold generally because the Bible tells me there are exceptions.

And so the Bible is my standard, my ultimate standard. I'm a presuppositionalist. And so then when I look at evidence, I believe that we should interpret the evidence in light of the clear revelation that God's given us in scripture.

Well, Dr. Ross, if you would like to give a follow up, I did I did say we want to move on, but I would imagine perhaps you'd want to speak to something there.

Well, I do agree with Jason that we should never allow science to trump the Bible. I mean, that's actually built into the statements of the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy. And, you know, my position, I think, as you know, is that God has revealed himself through two books, the book of scripture and the book of nature.

And you were commanded in the Bible to put everything to the test. So God wants our faith to be built on testable evidence. So, yes, I am an evidentialist, but I also see the value of presuppositionalism, namely that it's a great tool to show us what is not true.

Evidentialism is a great tool for establishing what is true. And I think proper apologetics, we need to use both tools. And incidentally, I think there are other apologetic approaches that likewise need to be taken into account.