How Old Is The Earth (And Does It Really Matter)?
This past year I conducted a survey at my church and found out that one third of my congregation believes the earth is old, another third thinks the earth is young, and the other third either doesn’t know or doesn’t care. I find those results to be interesting since they confirm what I had suspected…that people are genuinely confused about the age of the earth.
At the same time, I am actually encouraged by those results because it proves that the case is far from closed and shows that there is room for disagreement and healthy debate within the church regarding this issue. Even in a Bible church that is largely conservative theologically there is wide diversity in perspectives, so this clearly is not a liberal/conservative issue.
I grew up in a largely young earth environment and was consistently taught one side of the debate, which led to my presuming that there really was only one biblical view on this issue, at least for those Christians who consider the Scriptures to be inerrant. Like others in my circle, I was fairly dogmatic about this belief because I didn’t know any different.
So, I was genuinely surprised when I later learned that there are actually several other views held by evangelical Christians who maintain a high view of Scripture and are sincerely conservative in their theology. I eventually came to realize that the only difference between them and those in my tradition was the way that they interpret the same infallible Scripture.
This realization led me to look into the other views and read a host of literature from disparate perspectives, and the net result of that investigation for me is a high regard for the different views and deep respect for those who hold them. I now understand more fully that there are legitimate arguments for different views and that they are held by God-fearing, Bible-believing, highly intelligent Christians.
Admittedly, I still favor a young earth view, but my reasons are more theological and exegetical than they are geologic and scientific. I have read equally compelling arguments for and against a young earth based upon geology, but being a pastor and not a geologist I understandably and hopefully appropriately give more weight to special revelation than to natural.
Given that bias, I let Scripture become the ultimate arbiter of the issue. And, for that reason, I actually do prefer the common understanding of “yom” (day) in the Genesis account, which is the 24-hour day. And, I have found that the theological problem of suffering and death in the world before Adam’s sin though not insurmountable is quite difficult to reconcile with the rest of Scripture.
Nevertheless, I hold my personal leanings loosely knowing that I could be wrong. The truth is that the Scripture is not clearly explicit on this issue and there must be room for charitable disagreement in the church. We ought to permit and even encourage healthy dialogue and investigation to occur within the church and be tolerant of and comfortable with a diversity of views.
That being said, I am really concerned about two things regarding this emotionally charged debate in the church today. First, it bothers me how Christians treat each other while fighting over this issue. Young Earth Creationists accuse Old Earth Creationists of being unbiblical compromisers and Old Earth Creationists return the favor by calling Young Earth Creationists narrow-minded simpletons.
When I first read Hugh Ross’s A Matter of Days, I was stunned to hear how alienated and persecuted he felt by the evangelical church for his old earth views. In fact, he laments for several pages the unmitigated anger that was directed his way by pastors and evangelical leaders when he went public with his arguments.
In the same way, I was equally shocked to learn that Ken Hamm was being panned and ridiculed for his young earth views at Answers in Genesis. It seems many in the old earth community actually mock him and his peers for holding what they deem an outdated and narrow minded perspective.
Having grown up among young earth proponents that I respect, I am equally concerned by the childish panning directed their way as I am by the angry condemning that is returned. As a pastor who values diversity in lesser debates, I really am embarrassed by the lack of charity shown by both sides.
The other thing that bothers me about this issue is that I believe the church is fighting the wrong war. Jesus told us to be “wise as serpents and innocent as doves” as we live and minister in the midst of wolves, and being wise means that we must know where to draw the battle lines. As Christians, we too often draw lines where they shouldn’t be. And, the age of the earth need not be a battle line in the church.
Being wise as a snake is about knowing where the true war is, and the true battlefront is not whether the earth is young or old but whether the earth is created or not. You see, the real war today is whether God created the world or whether it evolved by blind chance. This means that we are fighting in the wrong place and wasting our energy and resources on the wrong things.
While the church is busy bickering about whether the earth is thousands or millions of years old, the culture is more interested in deciding whether there is any need for a Creator in the first place. In case you haven’t noticed, atheism is growing at unprecedented rates in America and around the world because more people think that God is basically unnecessary.
When we divide our forces and fight on the wrong battlefronts, we are spinning our wheels and wasting precious time in the real war over the creation story. People have forgotten that there is a God who created them and has plans for them because evolutionary naturalism tells them something different.
From a young age, we are taught that we are nothing more than an accident in the grand scheme of unfolding evolutionary events. Our culture believes more every day in blind chance as the parent for all things including us, and we lose more ground each year because we aren’t mounting efforts to show them otherwise.
Instead of fighting with each other about WHEN and HOW God created the earth, we ought to be fighting together for the truth THAT God created the earth and the people on it. The when and how are secondary. What is primary is the fact that there is a Creator who made all things, and that Creator is the God of the Bible.
People today need to hear one common message from the Church, and that message is that there is a Creator who made them, loves them, and has plans for them. They need to see that there is undeniable evidence that our world is carefully designed and personally superintended by an all powerful God, and they need to know that they are not an accident and that people have value, dignity and purpose because God gave it to them.
For this reason, I want to encourage my brothers and sisters in Christ to stop wasting emotional energy and spiritual resources on the when and how of creation and instead start spending it on the “that” of creation. Let’s invest ourselves in one common cause and unite in one shared message that the God of the universe made everything and He made it all for a purpose.
Kent,
In many ways I agree with your position. I agree particularly with the main issue being whether or not people acknowledge God as the Creator. In Romans 1 Paul writes “18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” God as Creator claims ownership and Lordship of the entire universe because He made it. It is intended to show forth His glory. Evolutionary Neo-Darwinism has some fundamental assumptions. Materialism is probably the most fundamental. This leads to their second assumption of a very old material universe. This is critical to their position in that all of their proposed mechanisms for the origin of complexity in the universe, especially life, are said to be gradual and cumulative. Without that long time their position is DOA. Secondly, that long time means that only indirect evidence can exist – there can’t be witnesses to the processes occurring and those processes can’t be expected to be duplicated for observation. I shan’t go further in this comment, but that’s why they so vehemently assert long time frames – they know that without them their case is not only doomed but hilariously ridiculous.
Thanks, Mike. You make a great point. It is true that scientific naturalists require an old earth in order to justify evolutionary variation. They need billions and billions of years, in fact, and that number seems to grow. In fairness to Old Earth Creationists, they do not propose that the earth is billions and billions of years old. They believe that it likely is millions. At least, that is what I’ve found to be true among the authors I’ve read. Either way, the primary evangelical positions (24 hour, day-age, and framework) do not allow for an indeterminate period of time.
Kent, I believe I’ve read almost every widely published author that is an advocate of Old Earth, and I don’t recall any of them saying the earth is only millions of years. 4-5 billion years is generally what I find. Can you give me a couple examples. I’d be interested in their arguments because I’ve never heard them.
Josh, you may be right. It may be in the billions rather than millions, but it’s important to note that those billions are not indeterminate. That’s the critical difference.
Kent, I just want to clarify my original comment about time frames a bit more. Naturalists need the long time frames not only for the asserted evolutionary speciation to take place, but also for the formation of stars and galaxies, repeated stellar life cycles for element formation, planetary accreation, etc. And the reason their time frames keep on getting longer is that observational science keeps throwing monkey wrenches into their theories. More time is the secret sauce that allows them keep holding their position. I almost can’t emphasize this enough – very long time frames are practically synonymous with a naturalistic viewpoint. This issue was the opening wedge in the western world and continues to be the lynch pin of their argumentation. Having agreed with the naturalist that very long time frames are correct, you will have, in effect, ceded the rest of his position to him – that chance, physics, and chemistry and TIME are all that are necessary to explain the universe that we observe.
Not sure I agree – naturalism requires time, but time doesn’t hurt creation (in theory, it doesn’t matter if the universe was created 10 billion years ago or ten thousand years ago, God is still creator). However, time doesn’t solve the issue for naturalism of the source of information (DNA, among other headaches. There are other positions from solid scholars (whether or not we agree with their conclusion is another matter) who hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, that God is the creator, that neither naturalism nor theistic evolution holds sway. Time doesn’t necessarily lead to naturalism.
Sometimes we can take the “given that” position, not necessarily agreeing with the position, but setting it aside as a point of contention. For example, “Given that the universe is ancient, where did information content come from?
Hope that makes sense… just adding my two cents to the discussion, not trying to ruffle any feathers
I’ll let you two smart guys figure this one out. Your two cents are always welcome here.
Second comment.
If the issue of the age of the earth is set aside as not fundamental, I will raise one that I think certainly is. The special creation of Adam and Eve. Did Adam or Eve have a belly button? That is, were they born? If they had biological descent from other life forms, then I think I can develop a case for saying that the Biblical view of what it means to made in the image of God is compromised and that Christ’s work, as Emmanuel who became the Lamb of God,is certainly not what the evangelical church teaches it to be. If, on the other hand, Adam and Eve were not born, but specially created by God, I really don’t understand why any Christian messes around with asserting that speciation through some sort of Darwinian process is something that we need to attempt to reconcile with the Scripture.
Mike, you raise another good point. The question of whether Adam and Eve were actual people is hotly debated, even among evangelicals. I, too, share your concern that if they were not real individuals and just representative of the human race, then we have a theological problem with the “Old Adam/New Adam” comparisons with Christ in Romans 5. However, I do know that many bright evangelicals disagree and I’m not sure that their view necessarily undermines the uniqueness of Christ and the gospel. I’d like for someone who holds a different view of Adam and Eve to weigh in on this.
Most Old Earth Creationists that I’m familiar with would say that Adam and Eve were certainly real people. Usually if someone is arguing for a metaphoric Adam and Eve, they fall in the Theistic Evolutionist category, or perhaps in an a view that proposes no time frame, such as that espoused by Walton.
Good post… the “creation” issue s one of may favorite topics, and I agree with your overall view. One point I make when I talk about this topic is that ANY system we have of explaining creation has issues. My “drop dead” issues are (1) God is the creator, (2) Man was specially created (not a beings that result from evolution and then given the breath of God. Man was specially created from the earth. (3) We must wrestle with the text and not simply spiritualize it away (aka, theistic evolution). there are probably half a dozen or more approaches by those who hold to the inerrancy of Scripture. (4) The author’s audience was not a “scientifically minded” audience, so to force Genesis One to be a scientific text (in a modern era mode of “scientific”) ignores authorial intent.
I also emphasize that most pastors don’t have much science background, and can’t really wrestle with the issues of science and that most scientists have little theological training. Each does a disservice to the other when they try to answer all the issues of that camp.
Thanks for the post…
Thank you, Roger! Those are terrific points, and I appreciate you making them. I’m grateful for your feedback.
Good points Roger. It seems to me that we spend way too much time concerned with the relation of science to Genesis, and not enough on Hermeneutics.
Josh, I agree that hermeneutics is the province of the pastor and science is not, but I think we actually need to be MORE concerned about the relationship of science to Genesis. If pastors bury their heads in the sand and simply hope the connection will be made on its own, it won’t happen. That’s why I like and recommend the new book Seven Days That Divide The World by John Lennox.
Hi Kent,
I can appreciate your frustration with what appears to be founded upon equally unverifiable viewpoints, but I believe there’s often a big difference between philosophizing about the ineffectiveness of debating the issue of origins, creation, and the age of the earth, and, as Roger pointed out, doing a disservice to someone when we haven’t researched opposing views to our own in order to handle or traverse their views them in a well-studied and capable fashion. I applaud you, nonetheless for pursuing such a desire, to know the issues on both sides of the street, at least from ably-articulated theses crafted by brilliant intellects. If you would like to add a non-hypothetical viewpoint to the mix, this very issue played a very big non-academic deal in my life.
I didn’t grow up in the church. I grew up in a secular, naturalistic household raised on a steady diet of evolutionary teaching, whether from Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Stephen Jay Gould, the staff of the National Parks Service, or National Geographic and their publications. I engaged in debates and arguments in high school with students who attempted to make the case for Creation (oddly, most of them were Mormons). At any rate, the stumbling blocks that prevented me from entertaining any discussion of faith involving anything other than a token deistic god or an impersonal “force” (e.g. pantheism, panentheism, New Age ideologies, etc.) was moot. The veracity of evolution and “science” made any discussion of Jesus completely irrelevant to me or people like me. A “loving God” was ridiculous. A “personal God” was pathetic, like a “pet rock,” and just as useless. Christian friends found me unapproachable. Some friends I grew up with who considered themselves Christians when we were young now live far from anything remotely resembling Christian faith, and I hate to entertain the thought that some of that may be attributable to my own intractable obstinacy.
Ironically, the instrument that God used to change all of that was, of all things, a Messianic Jewish Geology and Fine Arts student at the University of Arizona who held to a scientific Creationist perspective, in spite of being at one of the most humanistic research universities in the Southwest. The student introduced me to the ministry of the Institute for Creation Research and challenged fundamental world-view assumptions I had never had seriously or reasonably challenged my whole life.
I met one of ICR’s Geology professors who had written books on the inconsistencies of radiometric dating systems and the intricacies of flood geology. I set out to be proven wrong, and in the end, I ran out of arguments to keep me from seeing Jesus. The obstacles that obscured my ability to do so were the same that popular, secularly acceptable “science” puts in the way of millions of highly educated skeptics, so to relegate it to a peripheral issue is a tad offensive to someone like myself. It also may fail to do justice to being prepared to make a defense to *anyone* who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you… but then I guess the type of person I was never would have asked.
Justin, thanks for the great comment. I appreciate you “putting a face” on the discussion so it isn’t just theory. Your story is fascinating and a very cool example of how God draws us even from the most unlikely places.
I would simply add that you may have missed my point somewhat if you perceive that I’m relegating the issue to the periphery. To the contrary, I stated that the battle over the creation story is the “great war.” What isn’t great is internal bickering over whether the earth is thousands or millions of years old. I’m not saying such argumentation isn’t important, it just isn’t mission centric.
Hi Kent. I guess the point I failed to make, was that when I transitioned from my previous worldview to trusting the Biblical creation account, there appeared to be no reason to entertain long ages anymore. It puzzles me to hear people in the Church argue for their legitimacy. At secular institutions, research grants depend on certain acceptable views. At some point it seems crucial to simply take a step back and analyse our motives or reasoning for the alleged necessity of retrofitting long ages on days. I don’t know if I understand the enticement to legitimize naturalistic theories from the pulpit, if that is where discipleship starts. There seems to be a tug of war between the peer pressure of what is socially acceptable in the predominantly naturalistic popular scientific community and the perspicuity of general and special revelation. The arguments may seem innocuous or divergent from the centrality of the Gospel, but they are integrally attached to fundamental doctrinal issues, such as the perspicuity and inerrancy of Scripture– the parts that determine the relevancy and legitimacy of everything else we preach or teach, and that is mission centric.
Good point re: radiometric dating – however evidence of “age” is far more pervasive than any radiometric dating….
Not all who hold to “old earth” deny the perspicuity and inerrancy of Scripture. Those who wrestle with the text (which I agree is where we must start)land on different conclusions about how to put together the details. The age of the universe is a secondary issue, not a primary. That God is the creator, that man is specially created “from dirt” (not a ramped-up ape), that Scripture is inerrant are cardinal issues.
Having said that, I lean towards “young eart”,but it’s not something I’d take a bullet for.
Okay… I’m done now… I think I’ve commented too much already…
Justin, thanks for the clarification. If I understand you correctly, you see applying an old earth lens to the Scripture is capitulation to cultural and scientific pressure. I think it is certainly possible that in light of recent geological and empirical evidence, some have revisited the text in order to reconcile the two. However, old age creationism is not a modern invention. It’s been around since the Patristic fathers in the early church, some of whom seem to have held a day age view of the creation account. So, I’m not sure that I’d agree that it is “retrofitting” a new model on Scripture.
However, I agree that the pastor/teacher ought not to waste precious pulpit time arguing for it when he should be spending time and giving preference to Scriptural and theological exposition. In my case, I do not intend to spend any time on arguing for or against young or old age creationism but rather making the case for the Creator and His intentions for His creation, which really is the emphasis of Genesis anyway.
Kent,
I don’t understand the pastor/teacher point in the last paragraph after reading what you said earlier (Dec 16 1:59) which was “but I think we actually need to be MORE concerned about the relationship of science to Genesis. If pastors bury their heads in the sand and simply hope the connection will be made on its own, it won’t happen.” Do these two contradict each other or am I missing something?
Arrrggghhhhh… if you don;t fill out the name and e-mail before you try to submit, it kicks you to an error page and you lose whatever you typed. So… I’ll try again
You’re right, Kent, that we need to wrestle with science and Genesis. However, we need to be careful as pastors to recognize that we don’t have – and can’t have – all the “scientific knowledge” that relates to Genesis, for several reasons: (1) the sheer number of fields of science that relate (biology, chemistry, biochemistry, physics, astronomy, paleontology, genetics,and probably a few others that I can;t think of), (2) The incredible amount of new data and new theories that constatnly surfaces. (3) the complexity of specific issues.
Here’s just one example: Francis Collins (of humane genome fame)argues that so-called “junk” DNA in human DNA supports an evolutionary past (he is a theistic evolutionist). How many pastors know (a) the basics of how DNA works, (b) what “junk” DNA is, and (c) answers to explain “junk” DNA without appealing to an evolutionary past. I’d summize very few!
I’m a big fan of Intelligent Design – the movement looks for legitimate evidence supporting intelligence (it’s not a “God of the Gaps” approach) and it does not presuppose Genesis (despite arguments to the contrary from some critics).
As pastors, we need to be honest about our limitations, but at the same time, study and read to expand our knowledge. I was blessed with a “brain” that likes science. My undergrad is in Chemical Engineering – so I have enough science and math background to be dangerous
I’ll close with a short story – sounds like I’m patting myself on the back, but that’s not the point. Some years ago, I was preaching through Genesis. Unbeknownst to me, a visitor the day I atlked about creation was a doctor who taught anatomy at the LSU medical school. He and his famly soon joined our church. he told me what initially attracted him was (a)I didn;t try to say that all scientists were materialists and evil (he’d heard some pastors say this), (b) I didn’t try to have all the answers, but (c) I didn;t back down from believing in creation.
So… pastors, scientists (and professors, and…) – read, study, learn, but be honest about both your own limitations and the existence of issues no matter what view you take.
By the way – creation is much more than a Genesis 1 question. Every NT writer refers to creation and over half the OT books reference it as well.
End of sermon – started as a “thanks for the encouragement” and ended up a mini-sermon (okay, maybe not “mini”)
pardon all the typos… my fingers need more coffee this morning
Roger, I heartily agree with you. I recall early on in ministry I was preaching on Colossians 1 one Sunday in Santa Cruz and got into matters beyond my capacity as a pastor, and a green one at that. A kind Christian biology prof pulled me aside afterwards and encouraged me to broach such things with greater humility. I took note of that conversation and learned quickly not to overstep into subjects beyond my expertise. At the same time, I do try to know enough on relevant matters to speak to them at least with some credibility.
I have observed pastors talk boldly about the sciences, embarrassing themselves and turning off true practitioners. So, we definitely need to be careful to admit our limitations. At the same time, I also know a lot of pastors who altogether avoid such things and deprive their people of thoughtful integration. I definitely want to expose the people under my care to a diversity of fields and connect related matters to Scripture and theological truth. That’s really what I’m getting at when I say we ought to care more about relating science to Genesis.
I really appreciate how you think, Roger. And, I feel like we share much in common. I like that you have a mind for science and that you use it in your teaching. Blessings brother!
Thanks for the encouraging words Kent. My undergrad is in Chemical Engineering, with a ton of extra hours in biology, plus with my MDiv / DMin from Phx Seminary, I know enough in both fields to get in trouble
I’m with you. I was a Young Earth theorist for years and switched to Old Earth after taking a geology course in college, and it’s not a big deal. I’ve never had an argument with anyone over it and it’s not a hill I’m willing to die on. I completely agree that it’s far more important to know that we were created rather than the method or timeline of creation.
I did a presentation and paper on counseling atheists/secular humanists/agnostics for one of my Master’s classes recently, and came across a very interesting statistic: Every year, more than 1.3 million Americans join the ranks of the non-religious, and the number is even higher in Europe. This makes it even more important to have our stuff together on the fact of creation.
You got it, M. I know we look at this the same way as we do many things. Thanks for posting a comment! You know I appreciate it.
M,
Did you find the reasons why people are joining the ranks of the non-religious?
M,
Would you mind sharing what you learned in college that convinced you of an Old Earth?
Hi Woody,
I’m so sorry, I just saw your reply to me! I do have some information on that. My research was cursory at best, but as you can imagine, there were a variety of reasons as to why people are progressively joining the ranks of the non-religious. Atheism/Agnosticism weren’t even really heard about much until the 16th century, and before then anyone who was a proponent of either option was considered a social outcast. It was only in the 18th century that people thought there might be a positive connotation to being an atheist or an agnostic. The scientific revolution especially had bearing on this. Once naturalistic sources came into play, people started questioning the need for God as creator. That’s really what it goes back to: questioning the fact of creation. After that, it’s a slippery slope of questioning, which is where we find ourselves today. If God didn’t create, who did? If He didn’t create, what’s His purpose for existing? Is there a purpose? Do we need for God to have a purpose? Are we the highest order of life? Is there life after death or do we cease to exist?
I couldn’t find statistics for these things, but I have a sneaking suspicion that many people see the fact that God has not returned yet as evidence of His non-existence. They see the state of the world, the evil, the wars, the terrible things humans do to one another, and they conclude that if God exists, He cannot be good. When faced with the option of believing in that god, an evil god, I think many people take more comfort in assuming there is no God at all. Numbers are hard to come by on this, but in religious surveys, they ask questions along these lines and the answers people give are quite indicative of these trends.
Many questions about evolution and science have been raised over the years, and more and more often, people are turning to sources outside God to answer them. I guess, in the age of technology and the advancement of human ingenuity, God has become obsolete, a relic of the past.
Some people associate themselves with the non-religious simply because they abhor the idea of organized religion, but don’t reject a deity per se. It’s especially prevalent in developed Western nations due to secularism and what I believe is a lifestyle of comfort that lacks a recognized need for God. There is evidence that persecution actually makes the Gospel spread more and grows the Church, which I believe is significant.
Also, I should mention that atheism/agnosticism/non-religion/secular humanism are still very much part of this post-modern trend of picking out the items you like from the religious buffet line. What I mean is that some agnostics also consider themselves to be Christian, or Muslim, Buddhist, etc. Many Jews are atheists. There’s a lot of overlap because of culture. It basically works like this: Say I’m a Christian Agnostic. My view of God would be that I’m not entirely sure if God exists, but if He does, I think the Christian God is the most likely choice. There’s a lot of grey area in all this, and there are many facets to look over in figuring out why people are leaving religion in droves. But, that’s what I’ve gathered from my research. I hope it helps!
As for what moved me over to the Old Earth side of the fence, it was all science. In a Geology course I took, we learned all about the dating of fossils and the formation of rock deep in the Earth. We also learned about rock layers in places like the Grand Canyon and how long it took for the Colorado River to carve out that massive canyon, and much of the evidence they gave made good sense scientifically, based on the dating and the amount of time it takes for a rock to be shaped by weathering and mass wasting. God could’ve made the Earth to look old geologically but then the question becomes “why?” Granted, I’ll probably always ask Him “why” about everything!
I do believe God created the Earth, but I also believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. I’m not a macro-evolutionist or anything like that. Humans share more DNA with bananas than we do with chimpanzees and I’m not quite ready to make that leap in consciousness yet.
I read a lot of scientific material and for me an Old Earth theory simply makes more sense. But I’m not willing to die on that hill. There’s always a chance I’ll change my mind and be a Young Earth theorist again.
Thank you for asking!
Melissa,
Thanks for the response. I can identify with what you’re saying about the science because I’ve been there. I have B.A.s in Biology and Geology, so I’m well-steeped in old-age Earth and evolutionary science. After I became a Christian, I adopted a theistic evolution viewpoint (of course, that included an old-age belief). But that has all changed for me. I have another post on here that talks about why I don’t think the Earth is old, so I’ll try not to duplicate that.
Since the early 90′s, I have read several tons of material regarding origins science. I will summarize by saying that the evolutionist/old-age theorists must at all costs promote naturalistic causes with their theories, research and ideas, even if it means lying or pulling evidence out of thin air. There are many instances of fraud including Haeckel’s diagram showing that the stages of human development duplicate an evolutionary history (this was determined to be fraudulent in 1965 and yet was still in my college textbooks in the 70′s). More recently, we have the Oort cloud. A theoretical location in the outer regions of the solar system that produces comets. Despite not having a shred of evidence for its existence, the Oort cloud is presented as fact. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v15/n2/oort
I experienced this at the planetarium of the Arizona Science Center in December. There’s a lot more but I wanted to give you a little taste. I recommend watching Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled”. It sheds a lot of light on how the academic world views intelligent design.
Melissa, I would challenge you to do a little more investigation on old-age Earth theories. The information you were taught in college assumes that the rate at which things are occurring today has been the same throughout Earth’s history. It does not consider the possible impact of catastrophic events such as a global flood. You were taught that what you see appears to be old but how does anyone know what an old earth looks like if they’ve never seen a young earth? What we see could just as easily have been created by a global flood. There are several videos on the web that show an animated version of Dr. Walt Brown’s Hydroplate Theory describing how the flood could have occurred. Here’s one site where you can see it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxf40yO7I60&feature=related
If you are truly interested in learning more, I highly recommend starting with the Answers In Genesis website. http://www.answersingenesis.org/
As they say on the X-Files, the truth is out there.
Kent,
Would you expound upon this comment that you made in your original post.
“And, I have found that the theological problem of suffering and death in the world before Adam’s sin though not insurmountable is quite difficult to reconcile with the rest of Scripture.” Specifically, what is the theological argument that supports death before Adam’s sin?
Woody, it’s not a theological argument for but a theological problem with suffering and death already in the world before the fall. Those who hold to a day age view or framework view have the burden of proof in explaining how there can be predation and death prior Adam and Eve’s sin, which brought the consequence of death upon humanity.
It’s my understanding that old earth proponents argue that predation and death is not a consequence for sin but a veritable reality in physical life. They would say that the fall brought judgment and death to humans but that death in the food chain is not part of that judgment.
Though I can appreciate the argument, I do think it is a theological hurdle since the Scriptures seem to teach that death is the consequence that follows sin rather than precedes it.
While I agree with you (and, to be honest, “death before the fall” is THE biggest issue with the old earth position). I don’t have an answer for this, but…
Genesis 2:17 says: “but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” Satan misquotes this to the woman, but also references “death”. If no death of any kind existed before the fall, what did the man and woman think when they heard God refer to something unknown to them?
Don’t read into this anything more than “hmmm… a puzzle” But it’s always in the back of my mind whn I wrestle through Gen 1-3.
And so I go back to my bedrock: God is the creator, man is specially created in the image of God, and, assuming we wrestle with the text in between, I grant a lot of grace on other views that honestly deal with the text, even if I don’t necessarily agree.
I agree “death before sin” is huge….
And I lied … i think I said on the last comment I made that that would be the last comment I made… but maybe this one is. No promises this time, tho!!!
Roger,
I guess I wonder why one has to wrestle with text that is plainly written. If God had intended to communicate that creation took a long time, he could have done that. While “yom” can have 3 different meanings (full day, long time or partial day), the context and use of the word clearly indicate which meaning is intended. In Genesis 1, it clearly means a 24-hr day. I understand that there are other Hebrew words that mean a long time but they were not used in Genesis 1.
As for death, I understand some believe animal death for food could have occurred prior to the fall. However, Genesis 1:29-30 clearly indicates that God gave plants as food for all the animals. Also, Genesis closes with God declaring His creation “very good”. Death would not seem to qualify as something that is “very good”.
I can’t help but wonder why Bible scholars have wandered from the plain writing of Genesis. Could it be that they are influenced by what the majority of scientists are saying about our origin? If so, that would mean they are placing man’s ideas above God’s Word and, essentially, calling in to question the veracity of the Bible. If Genesis is wide-open to interpretation, what about the rest of the Bible?
Thanks, Woody – I promised I was done replying, so I’m going to leave it that way. Probably a good discussion to continue and clarify, but nonetheless,going to leave it here.
I think that Woody raises an important point. The passage he sites does say, essentially, that there was no predation prior to the Fall.
I also don’t understand why the carefully crafted genealogies in Genesis, with their very specific time frames, are not held as both complete and authoritative. Because if they are so held, then the whole narrative about human evolution is obviously without merit.
I am neither a Hebrew scholar not a geologist, however I do believe the following comment by John Lennox regarding science and worldview is relevant to the larger issue. Kent, I agree that the larger issue is not how or when God created but THAT He created.
“Carl Sagan expressed with elegant economy in the opening words of his acclaimed television series Cosmos: `The cosmos is all there is, or was, or ever shall be.’ This is the essence of naturalism. Sterling Lamprecht’s definition of naturalism is longer but nevertheless worth recording. He defines it to be: `a philosophical position, empirical method that regards everything that exists or occurs to be conditioned in its existence or occurrence by causal factors within one all-encompassing system of nature’. Thus there is nothing but nature. It is a closed system of cause and effect. There is no realm of the transcendent or supernatural. There is no `outside’. Diametrically opposed to naturalism and materialism is the theistic view of the universe that finds clear expression in the opening words of Genesis: `In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’ Here is an assertion that the universe is not a closed system but a creation, an artefact of the mind of God, maintained and upheld by him. It is an answer to the question: Why does the universe exist? It exists because God causes it to be. The Genesis statement is a statement of belief, not a statement of science, in exactly the same way as Sagan’s assertion is not a statement of science, but of his personal belief. Thus the key issue is, we repeat, not so much the relationship of the discipline of science to that of theology, but the relationship of science to the various worldviews held by scientists, in particular to naturalism and theism.
John C. Lennox. God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (p. 30). Kindle Edition.
Thanks, Ken. I appreciate the contribution. The quote from John Lennox is terrific.
Since Genesis is God’s creation account as given to Moses, I am more inclined to classify it as an historical account as opposed to a statement of “belief”. Referring to it as simply a belief serves to water down the text by implying that it has little hermeneutical, historical or scientific support. Just my opinion. Lennox calls the opening words of Genesis a “clear expression” but is silent about the clarity of the rest of the creation account. Is the rest of it un-clear or just too controversial when the “light” of the dominant scientific views of the day shine upon it?
I struggle with the oft repeated phrase that the main issue is not HOW God created but THAT He created. (I’m not sure if they are referring to the time-frame for creation, the method of creation or both.) While I can agree, this viewpoint seems to become a convenient reason to ignore the HOW of creation and, thus, greatly diminish this part of Genesis. I can’t imagine Christ’s last days being reduced to “the larger issue is that Jesus died for our sins and not how he died” and then the details of HOW are never discussed. In scholarly circles, there appears to be no problem with treating the NT text as historical as well as an acceptance of the texts as eye-witness accounts. Genesis 1-3 is often not accorded the same respect which would seem to be an indictment of God’s ability to be a witness. I wonder if most theologians don’t understand that the HOW will determine whether or not many people are going to believe THAT God did the creating. Or if people do believe God created, they may be struggling with the constant bombardment of evolution thru random chance and, Like the father in Mark 9, need help with their unbelief.
In short, the HOW has value.
Woody,
As one who has posted that the “who” is more important than the “how”, let me see if I can shed some light on that phrase. Two key points: (1) we must work with the text to try to understand the original author’s purpose in writing to the original audience (I take Moses as the author), (2) their exists a false dichotomy that says “if you don’t take the young earth view, you don’t hold a high view of Scripture”. Some have gone as far as saying that if you don;t hold a young earth view, you deny the inerrancy of Scripture.
The “who, not how” statement reflects (1) throughout the Bible, God is clearly the creator and man is specially created by God. Nowhere else is an explanation of creation given outside of Genesis 1-3. (2) The original audience was not a science-based audience, and so Genesis 1 is not necessarily a scientific explanation of creation (3) some solid scholars who hold a high view of Scripture (including inerrancy) interpret the passage differently than the young-earth crowd. I don’t necessarily agree with them, but I recognize other interpretations exist, I need to allow for differences of opinion of interpreation of the text. Only one interpretation is correct, but I need to at least be willing to consider that maybe mine is not best option. Scripture is inerrant, not my interpretation.
So, “who not how”, properly used, does not ignore the text or accomodate the text to science. It implies the who is clearly stated, repeatedly, through Scripture, but the “how” is given, at most, in very broad brush strokes, in Genesis. Beleivers who work with the text should allow room for differences of opinion about the “how”.
Keep in mind as well that the “who not how” has more importance in apolgetics and evagelism. Even if the young earth view is correct, I’ve lost my audience almost without exception if they (unbelievers, materialists) hear me say “young earth”. I can use, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, the “given that…” argument. It doesn;t mean I hold the view, but it disarms the other person. “Given that the universe is old….” – i.e., for the sake of argument, I’ll concede your point. Given that the universe is old, you still have the problem of the origin of matter, the origin of information content in DNA, etc.”. If I can get the audience to begin thinking about the possibility of a creator, I can deal with them later about the details of the text.
“Who not how” focusses on the main points of God as creator and man specially created, and views the “how” as a secondary issue. Important, but not critical.
Okay – spilled more words here than I intended, but I hope that makes some sense
Yes, it does make sense when witnessing but what about the pulpiteer? He’s addressing an audience (hopefully) dominated by believers. Shouldn’t the main purpose of the pulpit teacher be to bolster the believers knowledge by addressing some of the hermeneutical and scientific arguments related to creation? Shouldn’t he teach the truth, no matter how unpalatable or foreign it sounds, from the pulpit and let the Holy Spirit help the newbies understand? I would also think that dancing around the issue may create doubts in both old-timers and newbies. They may begin to think if Genesis 1-3 is so unclear and open to vastly different interpretations, what does that mean for the rest of the Bible. Perhaps my understanding in this area is limited or is too biased by many years of reading on the subject – both Biblical interpretation and science. I become closed-minded when I’ve been exposed to the fallacy(ies) of a particular viewpoint. From what I’ve seen, the evidence for a 6-day creation is pretty overwhelming from both Biblical and scientific perspectives. I look forward to Kent’s teaching on the subject.
Woody, as a “pulpiteer”, I think it isn’t much different. When a pastor assumes in his teaching that the young earth view is the only legitimate interpretation and dismisses or ignores the other primary views, it can compromise his credibility with those who see it differently. I have found that pastors actually gain credibility with their audience when they admit there are opposing viewpoints on major issues and approach their own interpretation with humility when the biblical evidence is not explicit.
I failed to give proper context to Lennox’s statement. His argument that I quoted from God’s Undertaker was addressing the issue of naturalism vs theism, not the veracity or historicity of Genesis one. THAT God created is a question that must be answered before HOW He created can be addressed, but you are correct, HOW is a significant issue that cannot be ignored. Lennox addresses the HOW question in his book Seven Days That Divide the World. My background and inclination is as a young earther. I do not function in the scientific world and am not subject to the challenges faced by people who do. While I do not yet agree with the old earth position, I am gaining respect for many who do. Lennox accepts scripture as God’s truth and holds an old earth position that he believes is defensible based Genesis one. For example he believes that …
“…there is a way of understanding Genesis 1 that does not compromise the authority and primacy of Scripture and that, at the same time, takes into account our increased knowledge of the universe, as Scripture itself suggests we should (Rom. 1:19–20).” Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science (p. 62). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
My understanding of his position is that there are literal days separated by significant periods of time. I am presenting rather than defending his position to erase any misconception that he does not believe that HOW is important, or that the Genesis narrative should be taken at anything less than face value. I do not want to make the error of misrepresenting his position by a quote without proper context.
A great book to read on this is “The Lost World Of Genesis One” by John Walton. John is the Old Testament professor at Wheaton College and really raises up some fascinating perspectives. Very much worth a read.
Thank you, Dan! I appreciate the recommendation.
Kent,
I am curious, as you are preaching through the first chapters of Genesis, whether or not you are going to also address the Noahic flood? One of the the big issues for both naturalists and ‘old-agers’ is how,(and when), the fossil record was laid down. Are the geologic strata and the fossilized remains of animals and plants embedded in those strata the results, (at least mostly), of a single event, or do those strata reflect a long series of rises and falls of land masses due to tectonic movements that took billions of years? Again, the actual, observable physical reality is what it is. But the interpretation of the observations comes through a lens of presuppositions. While there are certainly physical facts for which I have no good explanation from a young earth view, there are also observations that totally invalidate the old earth view of those geologic realities. (Interstitial fossils and radiocarbon activity in coal or diamonds for instance) Anyway, I want to address a different point.
Roger F said, above, that the intended purpose of Genesis was not scientific. I think I will grant that and then include all historical accounts into the same category. Operational science requires the observation of phenomena as they occur. History is intended to tell us what happened, particularly when we weren’t there to see it. Even forensic sciences such as archaeology and paleontology, can only deal with the physical evidence as it exists at the moment. The history they create from those observations is necessarily speculative. So, granting that Genesis is not intended to be a scientific treatise, I think that theologians need to be VERY, VERY careful before they dismiss the literal historicity of something that was,obviously, written in an historical mode. Really, I think that is the crux of the issue. Not whether Genesis is scientifically accurate, but is it historically accurate? Is it a useful myth? An analogy intended to convey ‘spiritual’ truths. (Really, what is a ‘spiritual truth’ as opposed just a truth?) Or is it the beginnings as they occurred at the level of detail God has decided is appropriate?
Mike, I will not be addressing the Noahic flood because I will only be teaching through the first three chapters of Genesis. It will only be a 10 part series that is focused on the creation story and its significance. I do not plan to get sidetracked with making the case either for or against the young or old earth view.
As for old earth evidence, have you read the book “The Bible, Rocks & Time” by David Young and Ralph Stearley? They are geologists who make a fairly compelling case for an old earth and would suggest it for anyone who thinks its an open/shut case for a young earth.
Michael,
Your question about teaching Noah’s flood along with creation is on target. While the flood and creation are two separate and distinct events, they have become linked. Both old-age earthers and young earthers use the flood or perhaps better stated, the results of the flood, to support their arguments. So, it would seem that any discussion comparing the various views should include Noah’s flood. I can understand why Kent wouldn’t want to delve into the scientific discussion. There is a lot of information to wade through and a non-scientist may struggle with the information (no offense Kent) unless he’s spent a lot of time reading on it. The best reason for including some of the science is that I believe many people have been influenced by the incessant portrayal of evolution, big-bang and old-age earth/universe as fact by the education system, entertainment industry and the media. If everything is explained by random chance, then God is irrelevant. Perhaps there is wisdom in only teaching that God created while leaving out the how and how long. But it seems to me that using creation science to dispell the concept of origins by big-bang/random chance would be an effective means of reaching non-believers who favor naturalism over God. However, since naturalists aren’t likely to be in church, maybe that approach requires a different venue.