The Creation Museum that has been in the news a lot lately opened up across the river from me. Since I am geographically close to the museum, several people have emailed me and asked for my thoughts about it. Some have asked me to post about it as well. I believe that this story has been over-covered by both national media and bloggers, so I will address one aspect that has gone unnoticed.
I have read several quotes or essays by Young Earth Creationists that fall into a particular interpretive fallacy (I have heard many Old Earthers commit the same mistake, I just haven’t seen it in print lately, but bad logic cuts across all ideological persuasions). Particularly, a friend of mine gave me an article in which this fallacy had bloomed in full display.
The author tried to prove that the first two chapters of Genesis were historically literal because they were non-poetry, that is, (in his view that meant) they were prose. So, he pointed to the narrative preterite forms and other features that he believes indicate that these chapters are not poetry which he stated meant that they were prose. Furthermore, he stated that since all other prose sections of the Old Testament were historically literal then the first two chapters of Genesis are also historically literal.
There are several fallacies within this argument, but let me treat what I see as the most troublesome. This author and many, many others have confused forms and genres. There is no fact/fiction distinction between prose and poetry (It should be noted that these are not binary options–another lost distinction. There are gradations of fact/fiction as well as of prose/poetry. You can have exalted prose and prosaic poetry and everything in between. You can also have historical fiction or Discovery Channel documentaries which are another category in themselves). That is, there is no connection between historical literalness and the fact that a writer composed a narrative in prose nor is there any connection with fiction and poetry. One can write an absolutely precise historical retrospective in exalted poetry. Why? Because poetry and prose are just different forms of writing not genres. You can have the genre of a battle account written in the form of either a prose narrative or a victory poem. Either form could be historically literal or a fictional creation.
Therefore, if you feel the need to argue one side or the other of this debate please get your logic in order. Don’t dismiss the historical literalness of the first two chapters of Genesis because they contain poetic features. Also, don’t try to prove its historical literalness by pointing out prose-like features. Both of these arguments are non sequiturs.