When we
ask questions about creation, what is the best way to learn from the two
great
books
of
God — the
Word of God (in scripture) and the Works of God (in
nature) — and find harmony in what we learn? { more about The Two Books of God }
In this page you'll see three stories,
about three Christians searching for truth about creation,
trying to
achieve
harmony
between
their interpretations
of scripture and nature. One story is from 1857, the other two are about
modern young-earth creationists, Henry Morris (who recently died, but his influence
continues)
and
Ken
Ham (still very active). Their
stories — summarized
in the ideas that resulted from their searches for harmony and truth — begin
after
the following introduction:
This page is Part 2, so first you should read Part 1 which distinguishes between essential apparent age (that would be necessary for immediate functionality in a young creation) and nonessential apparent age, and says:
Different
theories propose an "apparent
history" with appearance of age that is minimal, total, or partial.
Minimal Apparent Age: In
this theory, a false appearance of old age is limited to features that would
be necessary for immediate functionality. But this would include starlight
that was created "in transit
to us" instead of being released from a shining star. ...
Total
Apparent Age: According
to this theory,... God 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 current theories of astronomy... 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,... [there is] some
nonessential apparent
age
but
not
a total apparent history.
Among young-earth
creationists, views about Apparent Age vary across the entire range,
as illustrated by three views:
Phillip
Gosse (1857) is at one end of the spectrum, Total Appearance of Old Age; he
thought God created the universe with a "perfect antiquing" that
includes many nonessential details.
Ken Ham (current) is near
the other end, Minimal Appearance
of Old Age; he thinks
the antiquing was limited to essentials that would be necessary for life
in Eden.
Henry Morris (current) is somewhere between, with Partial Appearance
of Old Age.
In a previous edition of The
Answers Book, published by Answers in Genesis (AIG), the authors — Ken
Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland — quickly dismiss #1 (old
universe) and 2a (short distances), examine and dismiss 2b (high speed)
and 3 (apparent age),
and instead support 2c (in the "white hole" cosmology proposed
by Russell Humphreys). When
discussing apparent age, they don't use the terms I've invented, but
they do use the concepts to distinguish between
apparent age that is essential (in the first paragraph below) and nonessential
(in the second paragraph):
Consider
an exploding star (supernova) at, say, an accurately measured 100,000 light-years
away. ... As the astronomer on earth watches this exploding star, he is not
just receiving a beam of light. If that were all, then it would be
no problem at all to say that God could have created a whole chain of photons
(light particles/waves) already on their way.
However, what the astronomer
receives is also a particular, very specific pattern of variation within
the light, showing him/her the changes that one would expect to accompany
such an explosion — a predictable sequence of events involving neutrinos,
visible light, X-rays and gamma-rays. The light carries information
recording an apparently real event. The astronomer is perfectly justified
in interpreting this 'message' as representing an actual reality — that
there really was such an object, which exploded according to the laws of
physics, brightened, emitted X-rays, dimmed, and so on, all in accord with
those same physical laws. Everything he sees is consistent with this,
including the spectral patterns in the light from the star giving us a 'chemical
signature' of the elements contained in it. ...
To create such a detailed series
of signals in light beams reaching earth, signals which seem to have come
from a series of real events but in fact did not, has no conceivable purpose. Worse,
it is like saying that God created fossils in rocks to fool us, or even
test our faith, and that they don't represent anything real (a real animal
or plant that lived and died in the past). This would be a strange
deception.
These quotations are from an earlier version of How
can we see distant stars in a young universe? in The Answer Book, with co-authors that included Ken Ham. But now an article with the same title is in The New Answers Book but now it's written only by Jason Lisle. AIG evidently recognized what other scientists had been saying from the beginning — that white hole cosmology is scientifically inadequate — so AIG abandoned it even though, as explained above, they previously had claimed it was the answer for explaining distant starlight. Currently, Lisle adopts different criticisms in his attempt to defend a young-universe view.}
In the first two paragraphs of another page from AIG, Edmond Holroyd clearly explains the concept of apparent age and the problem (for a young-universe view) of light from distant stars, and in the next paragraph he proposes a solution that is rejected by AIG: Holroyd says, "Over a decade ago, there was a supernova in the Magellanic Clouds, small satellite galaxies to our own at an apparent distance of about 150,000 light years. Did that star actually explode that many years ago? Or did God, only a few thousand years ago, make a self-consistent field of electromagnetic waves (including light) that has only recently given us the appearance of an exploding star? Here is another example in which there is an appearance of age. Scientifically it appears that the star was that old when it exploded, just as Adam looked as if he were many years old on the seventh day. To be biblical, we have to be in awe of our God, who can orchestrate the entire heavens in such great detail! ( Ed. note: AiG rejects the light-created-in-transit idea — see How can we see distant stars in a young universe? )" { The editors-note is written by AIG, affirming their belief in minimal appearance of age. }
In his page about a
decrease in the speed of light Carl Wieland, a co-author of "How
can we see...?", criticizes a proposal that "God
created the starlight on its way" because "this
suffers grievously from the fact
that
starlight
also carries
information about distant cosmic events. The
created-in-transit theory means that the information would be ‘phony’,
recording events which never happened, hence deceptive."
AIG's
review of Unlocking
the Mysteries of Creation (2002 edition) is introduced with a summary:
"With heavy heart, AiG must give strong ‘thumbs
down’ to
beautifully-presented new creationist book." Here is one
reason for their negative review: "The ‘appearance
of age’ model
for how distant starlight arrived [page 25] is only one of many models now
available. The author does not discuss shortcomings
of that model, such as the fact that it requires God to have placed unnecessary
indicators of age (like galaxies in the process of colliding) in the cosmos." / Old-earth
creationists ask similar
theological questions about a recent creation that includes nonessential
details from
history that never happened.
What does Morris think about
starlight?
He says, "The
light from the sun, moon, and stars was shining upon the earth as soon as
they were created. ... It is possible that these light-waves were energized
even before the heavenly bodies themselves in order to provide the light
for the first three days. It was certainly no more difficult for God
to form the light-waves than the 'light-bearers' which would be established
to serve as future generators of those waves." (1974, p 210;
all book-references are below)
Morris recognizes the theological
problem posed by detailed apparent history — "the
light rays... must have been created carrying information descriptive of
historical physical events (such as super novae) which never actually occurred,
because we would now be observing light rays which were created in transit
and never were radiated from the stars which they seem to image (1973,
p 26)" and he says "God could have created
the light from the stars simultaneously with the stars themselves, so that
Adam could have seen the stars as soon as they were created [but] a major
difficulty with this assumption is how to deal with post-creation stellar
events such as supernovas" (2003) — but
he offers no solution.
In contrast with Ham, Morris
seems to accept apparent age as a possible explanation for why we see distant
starlight, including supernovas.
This kind of agreement is exactly what is to be expected on the basis of our deductions as to the past history of the radioactive elements, as originally created. ... The Bible quite plainly and irrefutably teaches the fact of a 'grown' Creation — one with an 'apparent age' of some sort, analogous to the 'apparent age' of a mature Adam at the first instant of his existence. This Creation must have included all the chemical elements already organized in all the organic and inorganic chemical compounds and mixtures necessary to support the processes of the earth and of life on the earth. These processes include the phenomena of radioactivity. It is perhaps possible that only the parent elements of the radioactive decay chains were originally created, but it is eminently more harmonious with the whole concept of a complete Creation to say that all the elements of the chain were also created simultaneously, most likely in a state of radioactive equilibrium. ... This means that, with each mineral containing a radioactive element, there were also at the original Creation all of the daughter elements in the decay series, including some of the final stable end-product. ... If it had been possible to make a radioactive time-estimate from these minerals immediately after their creation by the same methods as are now in use, they would have indicated some finite age for the earth, and this age, whatever it may have been, would have been the same for each of the different radiogenic elements in the mineral association. This is the most reasonable conclusion possible on the assumption of a genuine primeval creation as recorded in Genesis. (1961, pages 355-357, emphasis in original)Morris also proposes initial creation of daughter elements in 1974 (on pages 139 & 143) and in 1999 when he says the daughter/parent ratios might have been "created directly during the Creation period."
Morris claims this apparent
age, due to the inclusion of daughter elements, was essential: "This
creation must have included all the chemical elements already organized in
all the organic and inorganic chemical compounds and mixtures necessary to
support the processes of the earth and of life on the earth. These processes
include the phenomena of radioactivity." But would the daughter
elements be essential?
What
was the goal in creation? "The
Creation Model quite reasonably implies that these initial conditions were
produced in the system by the processes of creation and were of whatever
nature and magnitude they needed to be for that system thenceforth to function
optimally in the completed world as created. (source-CAIC)" To
achieve this goal of optimal functionality, what would be needed?
To make an environment that
was immediately functional for Adam and Eve in Eden, it would be necessary
(in a 144-hour creation) to provide soil — with a suitable mixture
of "organic
and inorganic chemical compounds" — that usually takes
years to form. But was there any practical need to create rocks containing
the daughter elements that usually are products of radioactive decay, to
mix the daughter
and parent isotopes in a way that leads to consistent (but false) scientific
conclusions about the age of rocks? Nutrient-rich soil could be
used by Adam and Eve to grow their food, but putting daughter isotopes in
rocks
seems
to be
nonessential
Apparent Age whose main function is to mislead modern scientists about the
age of the earth.
But Morris does set limits
on the potential manifestations of apparent age: "This
concept does not in any way suggest that fossils were created in the rocks,
nor were any other evidences of death or decay so created. This would
be the creation, not of an appearance of age, but of an appearance of evil,
and would be contrary to God's nature. (1974, page 210)"
What is "partial" about
the Partial Appearance of Age? Since fossils in the apparent history
would imply animal death before human sin,
which he considers unacceptable, Morris tries to explain the entire fossil
record
by flood
geology. But old-universe phenomena
that
don't
involve
death — such
as isotopes in rocks, or light from supernovas — can be explained by
appeal to apparent age.
Or maybe (*)
his view was Total Appearance of Age — so he was "free
to follow the evidence wherever it leads,... and accept all old-universe
conclusions of conventional science, or reject any of these conclusions if
this seems to be more scientifically
justifiable" — and he thinks rejection is scientifically justifiable
because "what would have happened since the beginning" would not include
a natural origin of life and its subsequent evolutionary development, because
life would occur only when God created it (during the six-day creation week)
and the fossil record was
then produced
by the global
flood in Genesis 7-8. / * Morris
has never explicitly defined his position this way. And he challenged
ALL "evolution" including the natural development of stars, galaxies,
and solar systems, so he probably thought the only possibility was
for God to create our world in fully functional form, without using any kind
of evolution.
Earlier in the book (p. 346)
he wondered "whether the 'apparent ages' of the
minerals so created, as indicated by the relative amounts of 'parent' and
'daughter' elements contained therein, would all be diverse from each other
or whether they would all exhibit some consistent value; and if the latter,
what value of apparent age might be implied." But "whatever
this 'setting' was, we may call it the 'apparent age' of the earth, but the
'true age' of the earth can only be known by means of divine revelation." Since
1961, Morris has contrasted apparent age with
true age and
has, like postmodern skeptics, questioned the reliability of scientific conclusions: "Something,
at the instant of its creation, must have had an 'appearance of age.' And
the only way we could then determine its 'true age' would be through divine
revelation. An 'apparent age' might of course be deduced for that something
on the basis of any processes of change which were observed in connection
with it, but this would not be the true age. (1961, p 345)"
In 1974 he explains why scientists
cannot reach reliable conclusions in historical science by using any method,
including
radiometric dating or geology:
In order to obtain a prehistoric date, therefore, it is necessary to use some kind of physical process which operates slowly enough to measure and steadily enough to produce significant changes. If certain assumptions are made about it, then it can yield a date which could be called the apparent age. Whether or not the apparent age is really the true age depends completely on the validity of the assumptions. Since there is no way in which the assumptions can be tested, there is no sure way (except by divine revelation) of knowing the true age of any geologic formation. ... [As an example of an untestable assumption] some of the "daughter" component [which in conventional radiometric dating is assumed to be formed by natural process over a period of time] may have been initially created along with the "parent" component. ... Apparent ages determined by means of any physical process are educated guesses and may well be completely unrelated to the true ages. (1974, pp 137-139)
What are the scientific and
theological implications of their theories about apparent history?
Theologically, total apparent
history (Gosse) is most questionable if a "detailed apparent history
of events that never happened" is considered theologically questionable,
while minimal apparent history (Ham) is most satisfactory.
Scientifically, total apparent
history (Gosse) is easiest, because it lets a
creationist agree with all conclusions of science, whether scientists are
claiming
a particular feature of the
universe is
young or old. A minimal apparent history (Ham) is most difficult
for young-universe creationists, because it requires a challenging of almost
all old-universe conclusions. In the table below, every NO is
an area of science where a young-universe creationist (with the view of Gosse,
Morris, or Ham) must challenge the conclusions of conventional science.
This table summarizes answers — YES or NO — when we ask "is there apparent age for a particular aspect of history?" An answer in parentheses — (YES) or (NO) — is my guess when I have not found an explicit answer in their writing, based on what they have said. Notice that all three agree about essential apparent age (yellow cells) but sometimes they disagree about nonessential apparent age (gray cells).
Was "apparent age in history" total, partial, or minimal? |
Gosse
TOTAL |
Morris
PARTIAL |
Ham
MINIMAL |
ESSENTIAL apparent age? | YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
basic simple starlight | YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
NON-ESSENTIAL apparent age? | YES
|
partial
|
NO
|
detailed starlight (supernovas,...) | ( YES )
|
( yes )
|
NO
|
radioactive dating (ratios,...) | ( YES )
|
YES
|
( NO )
|
did Adam and Eve have navels? | yes
|
( no )
|
( no )
|
fossils in geological record | YES
|
NO
|
( NO )
|
conventional geological evolution | YES
|
( NO )
|
( NO )
|
astro-evolution after Big Bang | ( YES )
|
( NO )
|
( NO )
|
As you can see in the table above, and as summarized below, "theologically, total apparent history (Gosse) is most questionable if... while minimal apparent history (Ham) is most satisfactory; scientifically, total apparent history (Gosse) is easiest... and a minimal apparent history (Ham) is most difficult."
Gosse
TOTAL |
Morris
PARTIAL |
Ham
MINIMAL |
|
THEOLOGICAL
questions |
death before sin?
nonessential history? |
nonessential history? |
( none )
|
SCIENTIFIC
challenges |
( none )
|
biological evolution
conventional geology |
biological evolution
conventional geology radioactivity supernovas |
Appendix Questions
about Apparent History Hill Roberts says, regarding
an "apparent age" explanation for how — if the universe
is less than 10,000 years old — in 1987 we saw the supernova explosion
of a star (or at least what appeared to be a star) that was 170,000 light-years
away, Tom Couchman, in a comprehensive
analysis, affirms essential apparent age and then (in the paragraph
below) criticizes nonessential apparent age:
In Part 1, in a section about
Pseudo-History and Divine Honesty, I say "it
is difficult for proponents of a young universe that 'looks old because
of apparent age' to logically determine what they should believe." An
IOU: The paragraph below was my initial attempt to describe this
difficulty in more detail. Eventually it will be fixed and expanded — to
include the concepts of cognitive dissonance (and the uncomfortable
tension it produces) and instrumentalist views of science — but
for awhile I'll just leave it as-it-was originally: |
This website for Whole-Person Education has TWO KINDS OF LINKS:
an ITALICIZED LINK keeps you inside a page, moving you to another part of it, and a NON-ITALICIZED LINK opens another page. Both keep everything inside this window, so your browser's BACK-button will always take you back to where you were. |
This page is
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/aa2-cr.htm
Copyright © 2004 by Craig Rusbult, all rights reserved
all links were checked-and-fixed on July 3, 2006