Apparent Age
Young-Earth Theories
proposing a Mature Creation
with a false Appearance of Old Age
are worthy of serious consideration, but
they
raise important theological questions because
some observed features of the universe would
not be necessary for immediate functionality,
so why would God create these features?
This page is an appendix
for
Part 1 of Apparent Age
which you should read first.
Summary-and-Analysis of Part 1
Three Theories
Theories of apparent
age (AA) deserve careful consideration. And
instead of generalizing, we should recognize the important differences
in three views; all views affirm the need for essential-AA,
but differ in the apparent history (is it total, partial, or minimal)
resulting from nonessential-AA. Part
2 describes these theories in more detail, using quotations
from prominent advocates: Phillip Gosse (total), Henry Morris (partial),
and Ken Ham (minimal). Partly due to the influence of Morris
and Ham, currently Partial-AA and Minimal-AA are much more common
than Total-AA, although I think most "people in the pews" with
young-earth views are nonscientists who haven't thought deeply
about these questions.
Theological
Possibilities
In a conventional
theistic worldview, God could use his creating/sustaining
power to instantly create a universe. IF this "creation
from nothing" produced a young universe a
few thousand years ago, it would have to involve some essential
apparent age to make a world that was immediately functional
with mature humans in a suitable environment. It might
also include nonessential apparent age (that
would not be necessary for immediate functionality) varying
from zero to maximal, thus producing an apparent
history that was minimal (with only essential-AA)
or total (with accurate data, including nonessential-AA,
about "everything that would have happened since the beginning")
or anything in-between.
God could also "create
from nothing" an old universe a few billion
years ago, and it would actually be the age it appears
to be, with only actual history and
no apparent history.
Scientific
Adequacy
With "perfect
antiquing" to produce a complete-and-accurate Total Apparent
History (with Total Apparent Age)
it would be impossible, using scientific observation and logic,
to distinguish between a universe that actually is old and
a recently created young universe that just appears to be
old. Total-AA is scientifically neutral, because
its truth (or falsity) cannot be scientifically tested, and
because it lets a young-universe creationist accept all old-universe
conclusions of conventional science, or reject any of these
conclusions if this seems scientifically justifiable.
But most young-universe
creationists propose Partial Apparent Age or Minimal
Apparent Age, and they want to reject most old-universe
conclusions of science. Usually they propose flood
geology to explain the earth's fossil record. With
any view of apparent history (total, partial, or minimal) we can
scientifically test a combination of apparent history (with
a false observed age for everything in the initial creation)
and actual history (with a true observed age for
everything happening after the initial creation). When flood
geology is tested, almost all scientists think it is not scientifically
adequate because its predictions (based on its theories) don't
match our observations; most scientists think there is abundant
evidence from a wide range of fields — including their studies
of sedimentary rocks, coral reefs, the fossil record in geological
context, biogeographical patterns, seafloor spreading and continental
drift, magnetic reversals, genetic molecular clocks, radioactive
dating, the development of stars, starlight from faraway galaxies,
and more — strongly indicating that the earth and universe
are billions of years old. The low status of young-earth
science seems unlikely to improve in the future.
Especially with Total-AA,
but also with Partial-AA, one possible reason for God to create
the universe with nonessential-AA would be to provide accurate
data about the characteristics of nature, so we can construct reliable
scientific theories about nature, which can help us make rational
decisions about our stewardship of nature.
Theological
Adequacy
Interpretations
of Genesis: The usual motivation for proposing a
young earth (and young universe) is a "recent creation
in six days" interpretation of Genesis 1. / But
simply reading the text carefully will show you the framework
in Genesis 1 that is logical (in connecting days 1-2-3
and 4-5-6, plus 1-4, 2-5, and 3-6) and is the organizing framework
for a topical history of creation. This interpretation,
which I think is the intended meaning, is compatible with a
young universe or old universe. { With Total-AA,
a young-earth framework interpretation would allow a one-time
instant creation instead of a progressive six-day creation; although
the end result could be the same, instantaneous creation is
simpler, more elegant, and it wouldn't be necessary to ask "what
would the apparent age seem to be, at various times during
a 144-hour creation period?" } I
think a framework interpretation was intended and is preferable,
not just possible. Therefore, it doesn't seem wise to
insist that the universe must be young — since this view
requires inadequate science (with flood geology, white hole
cosmology,...) and/or a theology proposing that "what
we see didn't really happen" — based on a rigid
interpretation of one chapter, when this isn't even the best
interpretation of Genesis 1.
Death before Sin: Another
motivation for proposing a young earth — and also flood geology,
and apparent history that is minimal or partial — is to avoid
an implication that animals died before humans sinned. Many
fossils are under the earth's surface, distributed in a way indicating
a long history of life, and with Total-AA (combining old-earth
apparent history with young-earth creation) there is an appearance
of animal death before human sin, even though there would be no
actual death in the apparent history preceding Eden. / But
if our theology is based only on the Bible — without non-biblical
appeals to our intuitive feelings about "the way things should be" based
on our emotional response to death — I think animal
death before human sin is theologically satisfactory, and there
is no reason to reject the abundant scientific evidence indicating
that animals died before humans sinned.
The Genesis Flood: A "global
flood" interpretation of Genesis 6-9 is another reason to propose young-earth
flood geology (instead of apparent history) as an explanation for fossils. / But
other interpretations, involving a local flood, can be proposed in young-earth "Total
AA" and by old-earth creationists.
Divine Honesty: Would
nonessential-AA be "a reason to ask whether
the ‘divine nature’ includes honesty, and whether God can be
trusted? Should we therefore assume that God would not use nonessential-AA
in creation? Or should we just say ‘so what?’ because
an apparent history makes no difference in everyday life? ... The history
of pre-creation doesn't matter much if God is faithful in his promises
and avoids misleading us in ways that are truly important."
EXTRA
a personal observation: I
find it easy to imagine God instantly creating the universe by using his sustaining
power. But usually young-universe views are motivated by an interpretation
of Genesis 1 in which there was a non-instantaneous progressive creation during
a 144-hour
period. This would be more complicated and is less easy for me to imagine — and
to ask "what would the apparent age seem to be, at various times during
the
144-hour
period of creation?" — but this progressive creation would be analogous
to miracles after the creation period, and of course the power of God is not
constrained
by
the
limitations
of our imaginations.
Appearance of Age:
Part 1 (an overview)
Part 2 (three views)
read other authors