El Filósofo Teísta Bentham’s Bulldog Tiene Potencial de Rabino
**Introducción: Por qué siquiera estoy haciendo esto**
Introduction: Why I'm Even Doing This
Just as I fail to match his talent for clickbait titles, I'm not going to try to challenge the infamous philosophical prodigy known as Bentham's Bulldog to an intellectual cage match. I'm Isha Yiras Hashem, which means a "woman who fears God" in Hebrew. Most of you know me as that quirky stay-at-home mom who has a lot to say.
When his Substack post "Young Earth Creationism Is Extremely False" landed in my inbox yesterday, I found myself smiling at its wonderful certainty. His post is really impressive: it is carefully researched, confidently presented, and he is absolutely 100% convinced that my beliefs don't stand a chance in the face of his arguments. (I am, unfortunately, not quite as convinced.)
Here's my unprofessional opinion: what if we're both right in different ways? Yes, I believe the Earth is 5,785 years young, and yes, it looks much older—and I'm perfectly comfortable with both those things being true. Science walks up to ‘Mother Nature’ and says, "Wow, you look ancient!" That seems a bit rude. I prefer to say that she was created by God, looking as perfectly as she was meant to look.
I actually agree about the evidence looking old. So we don't need to argue about like 98% of his post, which is good because I've already spent too much time on this today. He might be surprised to learn that that doesn't shake my faith—it strengthens it. I never assumed I was going to fully understand the mechanics of creation.
Others are equipped to address the scientific claims. My goal here is to invite him (and you) to consider that maybe we're not actually divided into two camps: superstitious young-Earthers on one side and sophisticated scientists on the other—most of us exist somewhere along that spectrum, in my case avidly reading talkorigins.net while the kids build Lego arks in the background.
What Bentham's Bulldog Says
His post marshals an impressive array of scientific evidence for an old earth. He brings in Christian physicists like Aron Wall, who dismisses the idea of a young Earth as "crackpot nonsense”. To him, the case is clear: when 98% of scientists agree on something, they must be right. Of course, I don't have as much faith in scientists as he does.
He doesn't stop there. Section 3 rebuts YEC arguments, Section 4 piles on evidence for evolution, and Section 5 tackles the usual young Earth arguments. His theological argument rests on the idea that a young Earth makes God a deceiver. By that logic, not striking sinners down with lightning is deceptive.
🌩
My Young Earth, Jewish Style
I'm a Young Earth Creationist, but not the kind Bentham strawmans. My belief comes from being a Torah literalist. I think every word true, every oral tradition is precious. The Jewish calendar says we're in year 5785, and I accept that as readily as I accept that God is One, that He gave us the Torah at Mount Sinai, and that there will be perfect justice in the World to Come.
From my earliest memories, the spiritual world has been as real to me as the physical one. Atheism was never really an option for me because I've always sensed another dimension beyond what science can measure. Not everyone feels this, and that's okay. We each see the world through different eyes.
To me, it seems obvious that the universe looks old because it was created fully formed, functional, and complete from the start. That's literally what it says in Genesis. Think of it like this: God created Adam as an adult who could walk and talk from day one. Maybe mountains weren't slowly pushed up; they were placed by slowly pushing up. Maybe starlight didn't need billions of years to reach us; it was stretched across the cosmos like a gorgeous tapestry on day four.
What does a "day” even mean before the Sun and Moon were created on Day 4? Bentham assumes a "day" meant 24 hours from the start, but if physicists can accept shifting time scales, why can't God's days be beyond our clocks?
Creation's not a one-off. It is God sustaining it all, every second. If God's will stopped, the Earth would wink back to nothing. So 5,785 years ago, it began, looking ancient from the start. My faith's not about fortifying my naturalistic timelines; it's about God.
Evolution? Sure, but Not Random
My journey with evolution started young. I read "On the Origin of Species," in seventh grade, determined to understand what all the fuss was about. I wasn't very impressed.
Darwin had an elegant idea: small changes over time, driven by survival needs, could transform species. His Galapagos finches showed this beautifully—similar birds with beaks adapted to different foods. But he was also humble about what he didn't know. He called the evolution of the eye "absurd in the highest degree" and remained agnostic about life's origins.
Then came modern evolution with its random mutations and natural selection. Richard Dawkins calls it the "blind watchmaker"—no plan, just genes surviving or not. But here's where I differ: if you believe in God, nothing is truly random.
I have long argued that the fossil record is like scientific Bible codes—you can find patterns if you look hard enough, but the gaps are real. Take Tiktaalik, that famous fish-tetrapod transition. Wikipedia admits it's not a direct ancestor, just a hint at what might have happened. Darwin predicted we'd find countless transitional fossils; we haven't. When Dawkins says "We don't need fossils" for evolution to be true, I hear echoes of my kids insisting they don't need evidence for their latest creative story.
The Bible Is Not a Science Book
Genesis says "six days," and I believe it—but on God's timeline, not mine. BB wants this to be about literal hours versus billions of years, because he argues that a literal Genesis contradicts science and makes God deceptive. I see it differently—God's showing us His artistry. The Torah gives me meaning and purpose; science helps me appreciate the masterpiece.
Maybe one day, Bentham will explain how God fits into his worldview, and I'll listen. For now, I'm content with my Torah and my ancient-looking young Earth.
Your takeaway from Benthams post is that he has Rabbi potential? 😂
Would that all rabbis were like him in their comprehension of these issues. Also there's no need to be a literalist of the Torah. There are plenty of textual problems when you're trying to take a literalist view and thinking of the world's creation that way.
Maybe the rocks are from far away in the universe but the actual togetherness of everything and the life forces etc., are young. Like meteors caught in centrifugal forces.