We can distinguish between essential
apparent age (produced by everything that would be necessary for immediate
functionality in a young universe) and nonessential
apparent age (produced by anything that would not be essential). Different
theories propose an apparent history with differing
amounts of nonessential details, with an appearance of age that is minimal,
total, or partial.
Minimal Apparent Age: In
this theory, an appearance of old age is limited to features that would
be necessary for immediate functionality. { But essential features
would include starlight that was created "in transit to us" instead of
being released from a shining star. Why? Because this is God's
universe, so he gets to decide what is and isn't essential for the initial
functionality he wanted, and he declared (in Genesis 1:14-19) that he wanted
faraway stars to be immediately visible, to help "serve
as signs to mark seasons and days and years." }
Total Apparent Age: According
to this theory, God first designed the universe and "ran a model
of the universe he wanted" in a thought-experiment that was totally
complete and accurate, and then he created a universe with an apparent
history that was complete, with accurate data (including nonessential
apparent age) about "what would have happened since the beginning" even
though it never happened. If the current theories accepted by almost
all scientists are correct, God created a universe that looks exactly
the same as if it had been created with a Big Bang billions of years
ago.
Partial Apparent Age: In
an in-between view, some advocates of young-earth creationism propose
some nonessential apparent age but not a total apparent history. In
a common view, for example, God created an apparent history that did
not include fossils — since these would imply that animals had
died before humans had sinned — but did include other nonessential
details about "what would have happened" in an older universe.
Scientific Testing
With total
apparent age that produced a total apparent
history, the appearance of age would be totally complete and perfectly
accurate. Therefore it would be impossible, using scientific observation
and logic, to distinguish between a universe that actually is billions
of years old and a universe created 6000 years ago, or 5 minutes ago, that
just appears to be old. In a young universe with "perfect
antiquing" all features would have a false appearance of old age,
despite their recent creation. In this situation our only reliable
source of knowledge about the actual age would be revelation from God,
which (according to young-earth proponents) has been provided in Genesis
1. With total apparent age, a young-universe creationist is free
to accept (or reject) old-universe scientific conclusions, to follow the
evidence wherever it leads. { Most young-earth creationists,
but not all, are also young-universe creationists. }
With minimal
apparent age, some observed features — such as basic
light from faraway stars — can be "explained away" by
appeals to the pseudo-history of apparent history. But
other features, such as detailed light from a supernova star,
require explanation. Minimal Apparent Age is thus more scientifically
difficult for proponents of a young universe, who must challenge almost
all of the old-universe conclusions that occur in many areas of historical
science.
The foundation of scientific
method is a "reality
check" in which theory-based deductions (usually
called predictions) are compared with observations. This
method cannot be used to test a young-universe theory that is defended by
the perfect antiquing in Total Apparent Age. But we can test a combination
of apparent history (with a false observed age for everything
created during the first 144 hours) and actual history (with a true
observed age for all features produced after the initial 144-hour creation
period). Most young-earth creationists propose a flood
geology in which a global flood, described in Genesis 7-8, produced
most of the earth's fossil record. According to almost all geologists,
the theory-based deductions of flood geology do not agree with observations. This
is a scientific reason to reject young-earth theories that combine apparent
age with flood geology.
Pseudo-Historical Details that provide
Scientific Insight
Is there a rational reason
to consider pseudo-historical details, such as supernovas that never
occurred, to be essential-AA rather than nonessential-AA? Maybe
the practical function of creating nature with an elaborate apparent
history, with many pseudo-historical details, is to provide accurate
data about the characteristics of nature and its cause-effect relationships. Eventually
in human history this data, when analyzed by scientific methods, would
let us construct reliable theories about nature, which can serve as a
foundation for making rational decisions about our stewardship of nature.
In this proposal, there
are two levels of functionality: Apparent Age that is useful
could be either essential-AA that is necessary
for an immediately functional universe, or detailed-AA with
the complex historical details that are necessary for an eventually
effective operations science, to allow the partial functioning
of modern science. Although anything that contributes to achieving
the goals of God might be considered essential, there is a major difference
in the level of necessity when we're comparing essential-AA (allowing
the immediate functioning of a universe) with detailed-AA (allowing
the eventual functioning of operations science) so I'm considering
detailed-AA to be one type of nonessential-AA, and perhaps the only
type.
Pseudo-History and Historical Science
In the definitions above, why
do I refer to a "partial functioning" of modern
science? Because even though detailed-AA would allow an effective operation
science (in which the goal is to construct theories about the ongoing
operation of nature) it could have a confusing effect on historical
science (with the goal of constructing theories about the history
of nature). For example, when scientists observe the detailed sequence
of events indicating a supernova explosion, are they wrong to conclude — based
on the reliable theories they have constructed from the data provided by
God — that the explosion really occurred? Or should scientists
try to figure out which data shows "what really happened" and which data
shows "what would have happened" but didn't really happen? This could
be very confusing.
The situation is simple for
a proponent of Total Apparent Age, because all features of the universe
would have the same apparent age. Therefore, all scientists can just
do their work as usual, and those believing Total AA can decide that an
event did happen if it seems to have occurred in the past 6000 years
(*), but it did not happen if
its apparent age is more than 6000 years. {* Or
instead of 6000 years, they might decide that the creation occurred at
10000 years, 50000 years, or... }
But with apparent age
that is partial or minimal, the situation is more complex because
some features, but not others, have apparent age. In these
views, reliable scientific conclusions about actual history are impossible
because it is difficult to know which evidence is a result of actual
history, and which is due to apparent history. Due to differing
views of apparent age, young-earth creationists sometimes disagree
about whether a particular conclusion of conventional science should
be accepted or challenged. As you'll see in Part
2, for example, Henry Morris seemed to accept the scientific
validity of some old-universe conclusions based on from radiometric
dating and supernova observing, and then he "explained it away" by
citing apparent age, and he also (in an attempt to "cover all
the bases"?) argued against the credibility of radiometric dating
techniques; but Ken Ham scientifically challenges both conclusions,
even though he doesn't think historical
science can be reliable so he asks, "Were you there? Did
you see it?"
Appropriate Humility about
Divine
Honesty
Is nonessential-AA consistent
with Paul's declaration (in Romans 1:20) that "since
the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal
power and divine nature — have
been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men
are without excuse"? If what is "clearly
seen" in "what has been made" is an
old universe, and we see this because God used nonessential-AA in creating
a false history leading to a false conclusion, is this 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 Bible doesn't seem to clearly teach anything specific
about the process of creation, but it clearly declares (in Romans 1,
Job 37-41, Psalms 19 & 104, Revelation 4:11,...) the glory of God
and his creation. And maybe one reason for nonessential-AA would
be to "provide accurate data about the characteristics
of nature and its cause-effect relationships... to help us make rational
decisions about our stewardship of nature."
In an earlier version of this
page, I said "if God is maximally honest, then
He will create an old universe without a false appearance of age," but
now I think more humility is appropriate because I "spoke
of things I did not understand" (Job 42:3) and I don't really
know what could and could not be involved in a "maximally
honest" creation. Instead, I'll say that "IF God
wants to avoid misleading us with false history, He will create a
universe that is old, so it can actually be the age it appears
to be," with IF rather than BECAUSE, since "to
avoid misleading us with false [pre-creation] history" might
not be a high priority for God, and 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.
My Evaluations (a summary)
Here are three central claims about
apparent age that seem justified: God has the capability to create a universe "from nothing" that
starts in
the middle of history instead of the beginning of history; IF the universe
is young, then essential-AA would be needed to make the universe immediately
functional; detailed nonessential-AA would be useful for operations science,
even though Partial-AA and Minimal-AA (but not Total-AA) would be confusing for
historical science.
A theory of Minimal-AA seems theologically
satisfactory; and despite serious questions raised by the nonessential-AA
in Total-AA or Partial-AA, I don't see any clear reason to think these young-earth
views are theologically unsatisfactory. { As explained in
the appendix, I think old-earth views can be theologically satisfactory: a "framework" interpretation
of Genesis is preferable; and if our theology is based only on the Bible,
there is no reason to deny animal
death before human sin.
There is an abundance of scientific
evidence strongly indicating that the earth and universe are billions of
years old. Of
the young-universe theories, Total-AA can be the most scientifically adequate
because its proponents are free to logically evaluate the evidence and decide
whether or not to accept old-universe conclusions; Minimal-AA seems
least adequate because it must challenge all old-universe conclusions of
conventional science in many fields, in a wide variety of areas.
I think “apparent age” theories are worthy of careful, respectful consideration. But when all things
are considered, I think an “actual age” theory — proposing
that God created an old universe from the beginning, so what we observe is the actual history (with no apparent history) of what really
happened — is preferable. This theory is scientifically supported, theologically satisfactory,
matches our common sense intuitions about the reality of our experiences,
and provides a solid foundation for science and for living by faith.
Summary-and-Analysis of Part 1 — This has been moved into a separate page that opens in a new window so you can see both pages at the same time, and compare their descriptions of the same topics: Three Theories Theological Possibilities Scientific Adequacy Theological Adequacy Apparent
Age (Part 2) examines a wide range of ideas about
apparent history — total, partial, and minimal — illustrated by three
theories, one from 1857 (Phillip Gosse) and two from prominent modern
young-earth
creationists
(Henry
Morris and Ken
Ham). These creationists all agree that the universe was created
recently, but they disagree about an important question: Did
the recent creation have an apparent history that was complete, with
apparent age that was both essential and nonessential? We'll
look at various aspects of history, including starlight, Adam, uranium,
and fossils. |
Apparent Age (Part 2) by
Craig Rusbult, APPEARANCE OF AGE is a links-page FAQ for Creation, Evolution, and Design |
This page is
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/aa-cr.htm
Copyright © 2003 by Craig Rusbult, all rights reserved
Whole-Person
Education for Science and Faith |
||||||||