Age of the Earth
( why it does and doesn't matter )
How old
are the earth and universe? This
page contains the final section in a page that "explains
why young-earth theories are not theologically necessary or scientifically
plausible." Here
are excerpts from the first three sections:
1. Young-Earth Theology: Linguistically
and theologically, old-earth interpretations of the Bible seem justified and
satisfactory, so believing the
Bible does not require believing a young earth. ... Advocates
of a young-earth position should be admired for their desire to determine what
The Word of God teaches, and believe
it. But they should humbly consider the possibility that their interpretations
are unjustifiably rigid, and are wrong. Linguistic
scholars and theologians, after careful studies of Genesis and the Bible
as a whole, have not reached agreement about the meaning of Genesis 1-11.
... In my opinion, a young-earth interpretation is possible but other interpretations
are preferable, so belief in the truth of what the Bible teaches does not
require belief in a young earth.
2. Young-Earth Science: Young-earth "flood
geology" theories, which propose that a global flood produced most of the earth's
geology and fossil record, lead to incorrect theory-based explanations of geological
formations, the arrangement of fossils in this geology, and the biogeographical
distribution of animals and plants. ... Evidence from a wide range
of
fields — including the
study of sedimentary rocks, coral reefs, the fossil record in geological context,
seafloor spreading and continental drift, magnetic reversals, genetic molecular
clocks, radioactive dating, the development of stars, starlight from faraway
galaxies, and more — indicates that the earth and universe are billions
of years old. ... When all things are considered, it doesn't
seem wise to use apparent age theory [proposing that God created a universe
that
looks
old
even though it is young] as
a
foundation
for
science
or
faith. ... There
are two main questions about origins — "What is the age of the earth?" and
"Was there a totally natural evolution of all
life?" — and [old-earth creation is not the same as old-earth evolution]
so it is wrong to imply that "old earth" means "evolution".
3. Logical Adjustments: In my opinion,
although a yeC interpretation of the Bible is reasonable, this makes it necessary
to accept science that is unreasonable; ... when we carefully study the Bible,
we see the valid reasons (both linguistic and theological) for an old-earth interpretation,
so the old-earth science has
produced "a motivation to reconsider" rather than a logical adjustment; ... there
is much less logical adjustment with oeC theology (which seems very satisfactory)
than with yeC science (which seems
very unsatisfactory). ... When we
try to harmonize the Bible and science, we are not comparing the Bible with
science and deciding which is more important. Instead, we are comparing
some fallible human interpretations (of the Bible) with other fallible
human interpretations (of nature) while trying to search for the truth.
Unfortunately, when a person who believes "if
the Bible is true, the earth is young" looks carefully at the strong
scientific evidence for an old earth, they may conclude that "since
the earth is not young, the Bible is not true," and
faith is weakened or abandoned. The main reason "it does matter" is
people, but (so the section can end with people) Section 4 begins with practical
consequences for society.
4. Why does it matter?
Practical Results in Education
In the past four decades, since the
revival of flood geology in 1961, the most prominent advocates of young-earth
views have framed the origins question as "Christianity versus atheism" with
Christianity represented by only young-earth creation, with old-earth creation
excluded from consideration. In American education, the practical results
have been:
1) an increase in the perceived plausibility
of evolution, because if only two
models (young-earth creation and old-earth evolution) are included in the
scientific competition, evolution will "win
points" simply because it proposes an old earth, and all evidence for
an old earth becomes evidence for evolution;
2) a decrease in the willingness of
science teachers to criticize evolution based on scientific evidence and
logical evaluation, because teachers don't want to give credibility to theories
about a young-earth (and young-universe) that usually have accompanied
criticisms of evolution, and because they assume that the legal prohibitions
against
teaching
young-earth
creationism also apply to any serious questioning of evolution.
The section
above describes practical reasons for why it does matter,
and the rest of this page is about why — for people
and theology — what we think about it (and about each other) does and doesn't matter.
Is a young earth essential for the
gospel of Jesus?
Some prominent creationists claim that
their young-earth interpretation of the Bible is necessary to provide a solid
historical and theological foundation for Christianity. They claim
that "if the Bible is true, the earth is young" which is equivalent
to stating that "if the earth is not young, the Bible is not true." This
is unfortunate because:
A) The link isn't justified. There
are valid reasons, based on careful linguistic and theological reasoning,
for adopting old-earth interpretations of Genesis. Although a creationist
belief that "God created everything" is essential, belief in a young earth
is not. A
young-earth theory should never be elevated into a fundamental doctrine like
the resurrection of Jesus. In 1 Corinthians 15:14, Paul correctly links
The Resurrection with The Gospel: "If Christ has not
been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." But
there should be no link with a young earth, because the
full gospel of Jesus — including his deity, virgin birth and
sinless human life, substitutionary atonement on the cross, death and resurrection,
ascension into heaven, and second coming — is
fully compatible with an old earth. { Useful principles for
interpreting scripture are in Learning from Nature and
History. }
B) If a person who thinks the
Bible requires a young earth examines the scientific evidence and concludes "the
earth is old," another conclusion may be that "if the Bible is wrong about
the earth's age, maybe it's also wrong about the rest," and faith is weakened
or abandoned. * Therefore, Christians
should not encourage (and should not accept) any implication — whether
it is made by fellow Christians who want to strengthen the Gospel, or by
non-Christians who want to discredit
the Gospel — that "if the earth is not young, the Bible is not true." {* Later
in the page, you can read about the personal experiences of
a few of the many
people who have struggled with this dilemma. }
Truth and Theory,
Humility and Respect
In the area of origins, emotions can
rise due to disagreements among people who feel strongly about important
issues, who are trying to find the truth and share it with others. In
the current climate of controversy, our personal interactions will be more
enjoyable and productive if we recognize the rationality of other positions
(by recognizing that others may also have good reasons, both intellectual
and ethical, for believing as they do), adopt an attitude of respectful humility
that honors the dignity of individuals holding those positions, and remember
that ideas and people are both important.
Treating others with respect is easier
if we develop an appropriate humility when estimating the certainty of our
own theories about theology and science. This requires
a balance between confidence (which if overdeveloped can become rude arrogance)
and humility (which can become timid relativism). When we're discussing
origins, most of us err in the direction of overconfidence in our own theories,
so trying to develop the virtue of cautious humility usually has a beneficial
effect.
We should remember a useful principle
from Section 3: "We are comparing some fallible human interpretations (of
the Bible) with other fallible human interpretations (of nature) while trying
to search for the truth."
Some words of wisdom — useful in
all areas of life, including our views of origins — come from St. Augustine: "In
essentials, unity. In nonessentials, diversity. And in all things,
charity." To decide when unity is desirable and when diversity
is acceptable, we must wisely distinguish between what is essential and not
essential. Behaving with charity requires a humility in estimating the
certainty of our theological and scientific interpretations, and a love that
transcends our differences, so "everyone will know that we are disciples of
Jesus because we love one another." (John 13:35, paraphrased)
Views and Experiences (of current and former advocates
of young-earth views)
Does the gospel require a young
earth?
The following quotations (which are extensions
of three quotations in the main body) show that, when we ask "Should
the gospel be linked with a young earth?", prominent young-earth creationists
answer "Yes!"
Ken Ham: "As
soon as Christians allow for death, suffering, and disease before sin, then
the whole foundations of the message of the Cross and the Atonement have been
destroyed. ... The whole message of the Gospel falls apart if one allows millions
of years for the creation of the world. (source)"
Henry Morris: {
I decided to omit the quotation that I had been using for Henry; I'll try
to find a better one. }
John Morris: "If
the earth is old, if fossils date from before man's sin, then Christianity
is wrong! These ideas destroy the foundation for the Gospel and negate
the work of Christ on the cross." (source)
"Any form of evolution and old-earth thinking is incompatible with the
work of Christ. ... If a Christian can distort Scripture to teach such beliefs
as evolution, progressive creation, an old earth, or a local flood, can that
Christian be trusted with other doctrines? ... Creationism should be a requirement
for Christian leadership! No church should sanction a pastor, Sunday
school teacher, deacon, elder, or Bible-study leader who knowledgeably and
purposefully errs on this crucial doctrine. (source)"
Personal
Experiences
A rigid insistence on a young-earth interpretation
can lead believers into a dilemma based on "if-and-if, then..." logic: IF
the Bible declares that the earth is young, and IF in reality the earth is
not young (as indicated by a logical evaluation of
abundant evidence), THEN the logical conclusion is that "the Bible is
false."
Ed, a former young-earth creationist
and current Christian, explains how to avoid a spiritual tragedy: "If
R [a friend who discarded his faith when faced with the if-if-then dilemma]
had been offered an alternative
[believing the Bible without believing in a young earth] from the beginning,
he would never have experienced the turmoil he went through. When R could
no longer deny that the universe was billions of years old, the only option
left for
him [because
he continued
to believe,
as
he had been taught, that believing the Bible requires believing a young earth]
was to deny the Bible."
Hill
Roberts, head of the "Lord, I Believe" outreach
ministry, says: "Some of my
well-meaning brethren wish we would just drop all aspects of time discussions
from our presentations. That would certainly be the easy way. Todd
[a former young-earth believer who, like "R", decided to stop believing
in the Bible and Jesus when he was confronted with the if-if-then dilemma]
is why we cannot go that way."
Joshua Zorn,
a missionary involved in church planting, describes his experience as a former
believer in the young-earth teaching that "creates
a nearly insurmountable barrier between the educated world and the church," and
that has a virtual monopoly in overseas missions. He explains why, as
an evangelist, he is worried because "we are sowing
the seeds of a major crisis which will make the job of world evangelism even
harder than it is already." Therefore, "from
the mission field, to pastors and leaders of the sending churches," he
makes "An Urgent Appeal for Humility in Addressing
the Question of the Age of the Earth."
Another way that "we
are sowing the seeds of a major crisis" is the virtual monopoly
of young-earth teaching in home schools, which may result in a multitude of "if-if-then..." dilemmas
(like those faced by Ed, R, and Todd) in the near future.
a fuller sharing of personal experiences
APPENDIX Learning
from Nature and History What was the change in theology? In
1500, people claimed that the Bible teaches an earth-centered universe
when it says "the sun rises and the sun sets, and
hurries back to where it rises," when it describes a mobile sun
that "rises at one end of the heavens and makes
its circuit to the other" and a stationary earth: "the
world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." (Ecclesiastes
1:5, Psalm 19:6, Psalm 93:1) In 1700, almost everyone agreed that
the Bible authors were simply describing what seems to be happening,
just as we now talk about a sunrise or sunset. The section above is from Our Ideas about Scripture and Nature. |
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. |
Why does it matter? (longer version) How old are the earth
and universe? |
This page is
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/whyoe.htm
Copyright © 2001 by Craig Rusbult
all rights reserved