( How old is the earth? ) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
produce form by separation | fill each form | |||
1 | separating day and night | 4 | sun for day, moon for night | |
2 | separating sky and sea | 5 | sky animals, sea animals | |
3 | separating land and
sea, land plants are created |
6 | land animals
and humans, plants are used for food |
This "form and fill" structure describes two related aspects of creation in Days 1 and 4 (for light), 2 and 5 (for sea and sky), 3 and 6 (for land), with topics arranged in a logical framework, not a chronological sequence. I think this is the most plausible interpretation of Genesis 1.
All interpretations should emphasize
the important theology in Genesis 1: all of nature is a creation of God,
subordinate to God; nature is "very good" but is not divine, and humans
are special because God created us in His own image.
Other Questions
Other questions from Genesis, not discussed
in this page, involve the historical context of Adam and Eve, whether Noah's
Flood was global or local, and if the genealogies are complete.
Efficiency
Is a long process of creation
a waste of time? Why use billions of years, instead of 144 hours? Or
is this an unnecessary worry? God has plenty of resources, including
time, and the evidence strongly indicates that God — like a master
potter carefully molding clay — really did take a long time to shape
the creation. Instead of challenging God's wisdom by asking "Why did
you waste billions of years?", it seems wise to adopt a humble attitude, "Surely
I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know. (Job
42:3)"
Animal Death before Human Sin
Could animal death precede human sin? In
a process of old-earth creation, many animals would live and die. Advocates
of a young earth claim that a loving God would not use this cruel process,
and that "death before sin" is incompatible with the central Biblical doctrine
(firmly established in Genesis 3, Romans 5,...) that death is the result
of sin.
Initially this argument seems impressive. But
when we look more closely, we see that even though the Bible refers to death
as an enemy of humans, to be overcome by the sinless life and the death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ (I Corinthians 15:12-57), the Bible doesn't
say much about the death of animals. Animal death before human sin
is not a theological problem because eternal life through the supernatural "tree
of life" (in Genesis 2-3) was available for humans, not animals; although
a claim that "death is the result of sin" is correct, a claim that "human
death is the result of human sin" (which can be an old-earth
view or young-earth view) is more justifiable than "all death is the
result of human sin" (which is only a young-earth view). A theology
of "human death being allowed by God due to human sin" is consistent with
the history of salvation: a supernaturally enabled life without death
(symbolized by the tree of life) was offered
by God to humans, was lost by Adam (Genesis 3:22), was regained for us by
Jesus, and will be actualized in the future (Revelation 2:7, 22:14).
Questions about sin and death are important, and are emphasized by advocates of young-earth views. The ideas outlined above are examined more closely in a page about Sin and Death in Biblical Theology which also discusses the "decay" in Romans 8:18-25 (and restoration in Revelation 21:4), the "very good" in Genesis 1:31 (and Romans 8:28), Genesis 1:29-30 and tiger teeth, the three results of sin (one intrinsic and two judicial) in Genesis 3, the "natural, miracle, natural" pattern of creation in Acts 3 and in other events of Biblical history, plus the "apparent age" that (as explained below in Section 2) would be necessary in a time-efficient recent creation, and three views (not two) about the history of sin and death.
a summary:
Advocates of a young-earth position
should be admired for their desire to determine what The Word of God teaches,
and believe it. But perhaps their interpretations are unjustifiably
rigid. After careful studies of
Genesis and the Bible as a whole, linguistic scholars and theologians have
not reached agreement about the meaning of Genesis 1-11. For example,
in 1982 the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy decided (by
agreement of all members except
Henry Morris)
to not include a 144-hour creation as an essential component of a fundamentalist
belief in inerrancy. In their report they
recommended using information from nature (interpreted by science) for interpreting
the
Bible, when they affirmed
that "in some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches,
and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations." In
my opinion, a young-earth interpretation is possible but — especially
when all things are considered, including information from nature — other
interpretations are preferable, so belief in the truth of what the Bible
teaches does not require belief in a young earth.
and a personal invitation: I hope you'll read another page I've written, which is similar to this page but with revisions (it's condensed in some ways, and expanded in other ways with new ideas) about Biblical Theology for young-earth Christians.
Abundant Evidence
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 (now and in the fossil record) of animals and plants. Although
young-earth science makes some valid claims for the geological importance
of catastrophic events, this does not contradict the old-earth theories of
modern geology, which propose a combination of slow-acting uniformitarian
processes and fast-acting catastrophic events such
as volcanoes, earthquakes, and floods.
Evidence from a wide range of fields — including
the study 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 — indicates that
the earth and universe are billions of years old.
multiple
independent confirmations: Because "a
long time" is
an essential component of many theories that in other ways (such as the
domains
they
explain and the other components they include) are relatively independent,
it is less likely that suspicions of circular reasoning are justified. With
this independence, the old-earth evidence is not like a "house of cards" where
if one part falls it all falls. It is more like a strong house with
a ceiling supported in many ways: by concrete walls reinforced by
steel rods, plus granite pillars, wood beams,... Each support would
be sufficient by itself, but when combined the support is even stronger. The
young-earth task of pulling down the "old-earth house" would require discarding
much of modern science. This isn't likely to happen, nor is it a desirable
goal. / What do you think is more credible, Young-Earth Creation Science or Old-Earth Evidence?
What about future science? Although
yeCs can hope that in the future their scientific theories eventually will
obtain
a closer
match
with
observations,
this optimism does not seem justified, since the abundant evidence for an
old universe occurs in so many different areas.
Evidence or Preference?
Are the conclusions of science based on scientific
evidence
and logic, or
philosophical
preference?
In
an
effort
to
weaken
the authority of historical sciences, such as astronomy and geology, advocates
of young-earth
theories ask "were you there?" and claim that a "no" means "then
you can't know what happened." They claim — using arguments
similar to those made by postmodern critics of scientific rationality — that
in historical science the conventional old-earth conclusions are mainly due
to culturally biased philosophical presuppositions and personal preferences,
rather
than
evidence and logic.
Can the
methods
of historical science produce reliable conclusions? Yes, as explained in my defense of Historical Science against postmodern criticism, whether this comes from postmodern skeptics or creationist skeptics.
Apparent Age?
Light is reaching us from stars that
are billions of light-years away. But how can this occur if the universe
is less than ten thousand years old? To avoid this difficulty and others,
many advocates of young-earth science claim that the universe was created
with apparent age (AA) that makes some features
appear to be very old even though the actual age is very young. According
to AA, God efficiently created a universe that would be immediately functional,
with mature humans, complete ecosystems, and starlight that was created "in
transit to us" instead of being released from a shining star.
If the "antiquing" was done perfectly,
it would be impossible to scientifically distinguish between a universe that
really is billions of years old and a universe created 6000 years ago (or
5 minutes ago) that just appears to be old. But even though AA cannot
be tested, usually young-earth science combines AA (with a false observed
age for everything created during the first 144 hours) and flood geology
(with a true observed age for all features produced during the global flood). A
hybrid theory of "AA plus flood geology" can be tested, and many of its predictions
do not agree with the scientific evidence.
Observations also provide theological
reasons to reject AA, especially when we distinguish between essential-AA (necessary
for an immediately functional universe) and nonessential-AA (not
necessary for functionality). For example, when scientists observe
light whose characteristics are changing in a way which corresponds to the
sequence of events that occur during a supernova explosion, should they conclude
that this event really did occur, or that it is part of an apparent history
(created by God) about events that never really happened? Are we seeing "what
would have happened" if there had been a Big Bang Beginning? 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. And should a young-earth scientist challenge
the credibility of Big Bang astronomy if, due to superb "antiquing" by God,
this is what the scientific evidence indicates? Or should we conclude
that an honest God would probably create an old universe that can actually be the
age it appears to be, instead of a young universe that looks old due
to details (like supernovas which never happened) that serve no practical
purpose
except to mislead us? { A common claim — that "God has declared
the universe to be young in Genesis 1, so if it is not young then He is a
liar" — is based on an interpretation that is only one of several
good interpretations, as described in Section 1. }
I think "apparent age" theories are
worthy of careful, respectful consideration. But when all things
are considered, I don't think it is wise to use a theory that includes
nonessential apparent age — especially when, as is usually the case,
this is combined with scientifically inadequate flood geology — as
an essential part
of a foundation for science or faith.
note: If
this looks interesting, you can read an in-depth examination of Apparent
Age.
Two Questions
There are two main questions about origins: What
is the age of the earth? Was there a totally natural evolution of all
life?
Of course, natural evolution would be
impossible with a young earth. But even if the earth is old, there
are many reasons to conclude that natural evolution is impossible, and old-earth
creation (proposing that God used miracles in creation history, as
in Biblical history) is not the same as old-earth evolution (proposing
that everything evolved through natural process). Therefore, it is
wrong to imply that "old earth" means "evolution".
{ historical fact: Decades before
Darwin's "Origin of Species" was published in 1859, for scientific reasons
(they were convinced that their observations of the earth's geology were
not consistent with young-earth theories) most geologists had accepted old-earth
theories because these ideas were needed in geological science, not because
an old earth was needed for Darwinian evolution. }
3. Logical Adjustments
In my opinion,
young-earth creation (yeC)
begins with a firm commitment to young-earth theology, which makes "logical
adjustments" necessary in young-earth science, but this does not produce
satisfactory science. Although a yeC interpretation of the Bible is
reasonable, this makes it necessary to accept science that is unreasonable.
old-earth
creation (oeC)
begins with scientific support, which motivates an examination of theology. Then,
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. Is miraculous old-earth creation theologically supported
because it is analogous to God's usual "method for miracles"
throughout the Bible?
there is much less logical adjustment
with oeC theology (which seems very satisfactory) than with yeC science (which
seems very unsatisfactory).
an essential principle: 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.
In the full page, Section 3 ends with a question inspired by history: In the 1600s, appeals to the Bible were used to support earth-centered science that was wrong. Currently, are appeals to the Bible being used to support young-earth science that is wrong? { the appendix contains Principles for Learning from History and Nature }
4. Why does it matter?
Practical Results in Education
In the past four decades, since
the revival of flood geology in 1961 when theological creation became young-earth
creationism, the most prominent advocates of young-earth views have framed
the origins question
as an either-or
choice
between only
Two Models: Creation versus Evolution,
which is defined as Christianity versus Atheism. In the two-model
view of prominent young-earth creationists, atheistic
evolution is defined as everything
except young-earth creation, so Christianity
is represented by only young-earth creation, and old-earth
creation is excluded
from consideration. {a young-earth view of old-earth
creation} In
American education, the practical results of creationism have been:
1) an increase in the perceived
plausibility of evolution, because in a scientific competition
that includes only two
models (young-earth creation and old-earth evolution) the either-or logic
of mutual exclusion — which is demanded by young-earth advocates, to the
delight of evolutionists — guarantees that evolution will "win
points" simply because it proposes an old universe because, using either-or
logic, 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 the
young-universe theories 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.
{* another
page shows why this either-or logic is wrong, by examining the many meanings
of evolution and creation, in Principles
for a Logical Evaluation of Evolution}
Is a young earth essential for the
gospel of Jesus?
Some prominent creationists defend
their "two model" approach by claiming that their young-earth interpretation
of Genesis is the only possible Christian interpretation, that it is necessary
to provide a solid
historical and theological foundation for Christianity. They claim
that "if the Bible is true, then certainly the earth is young" which is logically
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 belief
that "God created everything" is essential, belief in a young earth is not. In
the Bible a young-earth theory is not very important and is not taught with
certainty, so it 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.
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." {* In
the appendix you can read about the personal
experiences of
people who have struggled with this dilemma. }
You can read an overview/summary describing some claims of young-earth creationism that seem unwise because they lack humility and respect, because they can be hazardous for faith and evangelism, in two sections — asking "Is it wise to link The Gospel with a Young Earth?" and examining Death and Sin — in Age of the Earth - Genesis & Theology.
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)
These ideas, about truth and respect, are examined in more depth in The Two Books of God — by asking "How can we wisely use what God has revealed in scripture and nature? and when we disagree, what should we do?"
Shorter versions of
most pages below
are in an FAQ for
Creation, Evolution,
and Intelligent Design
(check FAQs 2-4 for
age-of-the-earth ideas,
as in the medium-sized
Creation-FAQ Overview)
Two Books of God:
Scripture & Nature
Historical Science &
Young-Earth Skeptics
Young-Earth Views:
Theology & Science
Death before Sin?
Theology for Humans
False Apparent Age:
Starlight & Theology
Entropy and Evolution:
Second Law of Thermo
Is old-earth creation
logically inconsistent?
Science and Religion
in Conflict? Warfare?
Mutual Interactions of
Science & Worldviews
Anthropic Principle:
Design & Multiverse?
Homepage for Origins
( with me as editor )
APPENDIX
The Creation
Process in Biblical History
In young-earth special
creation, God "used processes which
are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. (Duane
Gish)" But in old-earth progressive
creation, God's divine action during the
long creation process is similar to God's action (usually
normal-appearing and occasionally miraculous) during the
long salvation process, recorded in the Bible, that extends
from the Fall through Abraham and Jesus into the present and future.
And in old-earth
creation by genetic modification of existing matter, another
analogy with Biblical history is that, when doing miracles, God usually
has worked with available resources instead of "starting from
scratch" with independent creations. For example, Jesus
converted water into wine (in John 2) instead of creating wine from
nothing. At the beginning of history, Jesus created the universe
from nothing, but during history Jesus preferred to create wine from
water, not from nothing. And when God acted through Peter and
John to miraculously heal the lame man in Acts 3, there was major
biological constancy — the man retained his body (with
most of it unchanged, so he was recognized by everyone) — despite
the major biological changes in his
muscle tissue and in the new nerve-coordination knowledge that let
him use his new leg muscles. Throughout almost all his life,
except for the instant of miraculous change, natural process (partially
or totally guided by God) seemed to be the only factor operating
in his life, with everything occurring naturally in the usual normal-appearing
way. A time-line of his life would be "natural (for a
long time), miracle (for an instant), natural (for a long time)," analogous
to the time-line that is proposed in old-earth "creation by
genetic modification" for the development of earth's biological
life.
Of course, the fact that
this "natural miracle natural" pattern occurs repeatedly
throughout the Bible is not a proof. But if there is analogy
between Biblical history and creation history, then Biblical miracles
provide theological support for "old-earth progressive creation
by modification of existing resources" rather than "independent
creation from nothing" as the most common type of miracle (but
not necessarily the only type) used by God during the process of
creation.
But occasionally, as
in providing manna during the Hebrews' exodus, God does create from
nothing. And in miracles like the increase in mass of the lame
man's leg, or the "multiplication" of loaves and fishes
by Jesus (in Matthew 14, Mark 6, Luke 9, John 6) there is some independent
creation of matter, as there would be in adding genes to a genome. So
there is Biblical evidence that God can (and does occasionally) "create
matter from nothing" during the history of nature, not just
in His initial creation of nature.
Learning
from History and Nature
We try to understand the two books of God, in scripture
and nature, by careful examinations in theology and science.
All of us can agree that in scripture
the main purpose is to help us understand spiritual realities, but is
this the only purpose? Do any passages in the Bible contain scientific
information that should be used in our scientific theories? Or should
we use information from science to help us interpret the passages? When
thinking about these questions, one useful principle is illustrated by changes
in our theories about the solar system:
In 1500, ..... [..... indicates
omitted text] In
1620, ..... In
1700, ..... {the full text of this section is in The
Two Books of God} What was the change in theology? ..... What
caused this change? Our
interpretation of the Bible was influenced by information from science. This
influence was beneficial, since it helped us recognize that in these
passages the Bible was not making a scientific statement teaching us "how
the heavens go."
In this reinterpretation
of scripture, we are not comparing the Bible (which says "the sun rises")
with science (which claims "the earth moves") and deciding which is more
important. Instead, we are comparing different interpretations
(of the Bible, and of nature) and are wisely using all available information
in our search for truth. We are trying to find the correct answer
when we ask, "Is science being taught in the Bible passage we're studying?" For
this question, information from nature — gathered
and evaluated using the logical methods of science — can be very
useful, as recommended by the International Council
on Biblical Inerrancy.
Here is a lesson from history and a modern application:
An argument (with two claims and a conclusion) could
be made in 1700:
1. Christianity requires planetary motions
to be earth-centered.
2. Science shows the planetary motions are not earth-centered.
3. Therefore, Christianity is false.
How did Christians respond to the two claims, in 1 and 2?
A) reject a claim that Christianity requires
earth-centered motions?
B) reject a claim that science shows motions are not earth-centered?
C) accept both claims and also the conclusion?
Almost all people, Christian and non-Christian, have chosen A.
An argument that is analogous, and logical, can be made in 2004:
1. Christianity requires a young earth.
2. Science shows the Earth is not young.
3. Therefore, Christianity is false.
How should Christians respond to the two claims, in 1 and 2?
A) reject a claim that Christianity requires
a young earth?
B) reject a claim that science shows the earth is not young?
C) accept both claims and also the conclusion?
(old-earthers, young-earthers, and atheists choose A, B, and C)
Do you see the danger of linking the gospel of Jesus with a young earth?
Attitudes
Span a Wide Spectrum
Among proponents of young-earth creation, attitudes
span a wide spectrum. Some (such as Ham, Morris, and Morris, in the quotes below) are
certain that their interpretation of the Bible is correct, and that anyone who
disagrees with them is certainly wrong. Others (such as Paul Nelson & John
Mark Reynolds, in Three Views on Creation and Evolution) adopt a more
humble approach. Nelson & Reynolds acknowledge the difficulties in
current young-earth science, but think there are enough questions (about old-earth
theories) to make young-earth theories worthy of further scientific research
and development. Although they think a young-earth interpretation of the
Bible is justified, and young-earth theology is preferable, they are not dogmatic
about these views and are less critical of fellow Christians who think old-earth
views are justified and preferable. While Ham and the Morrises treat old-earth
creationists as "compromisers" who are enemies of authentic Christian
doctrine and faith, Nelson & Reynolds treat them as valuable allies: "With
both Christian and secular educational systems beset by naturalism, a truce is
in order. The old-earth creationist is an ally against both the theistic
naturalism limiting the free flow of ideas inside the church and the secular
naturalism cutting off new thinking in the universities." In
my opinion, the approach taken by Nelson & Reynolds is closer to an appropriate
humility that is logically justified and will be spiritually edifying for the
Christian community. In addition, recently there have been other examples
of edifying attitudes and productive actions in the
Christian community, and this is encouraging.
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: "When
one decides to reject the concept of real [young-earth] Creation, there
is no scientific stopping-point short of what amounts to atheism. ... It
[any old-earth view]
is essentially an affirmation of atheism, a denial of the possibility of
a real Creation. (The Genesis Flood, pages
237-238, by Whitcomb & Morris in 1961; similar views are on page 307
of What is Creation Science? by Morris & Parker in 1987)"
John Morris: "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)"
A
Young-Earth
View of Old-Earth Creation
The pioneer of modern young-earth creationism,
Henry
Morris, set the tone in 1961 by saying that old-earth progressive creation "is
less acceptable than theistic evolution [because it]... not only charges God
with waste and cruelty (through its commitment to the geologic ages) but also
with ignorance and incompetence. God's postulated intermittent creative
efforts show either that He didn't know what He wanted when He started the process
or
else that He couldn't provide it with enough energy to sustain it until it reached
its goal. A god who would have to create man by any such cut-and-try discontinuous,
injurious method as this can hardly be the omniscient, omnipotent, loving God
of the Bible." (this quote is from 1973 but
he said the same
thing in 1961 in The Genesis Flood and throughout the rest of his life)
Ken Ham
— Are his interpretations infallible?
Ken Ham rejects the old-earth conclusions
of modern
science
by dismissing them as "man's
fallible dating methods" and he asks, "Can
fallible,
sinful
man
be
in
authority over the Word of God?" He seems to be claiming that
an
old-earth interpretation of nature is hindered by sin, but his own young-earth interpretation
of scripture is not hindered by sin, so his interpretation of the Bible
(not just the Bible
itself) is infallible. And his claim about "authority" ignores
the
fact that we cannot directly compare the Bible with science,
we
can
only compare interpretations of the Bible (in theology) with interpretations
of nature (in
science) while
trying to search for truth.
In my Biblical
Theology for young-earth
Christians a section asking "Why does Ken Ham think the earth rotates
and
orbits?" explains how he
accepts
evidence
from
nature
(logically
interpreted
in science)
and then uses this as a motivation to examine scripture more carefully,
and
when
he
does this he finds valid reasons to accept a moving-earth interpretation
of scripture. In a similar way, many Christians find valid reasons
to accept an old-earth interpretation of scripture.
Quotations (from current and former advocates of young-earth views)
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 longer version of Section 4 includes a fuller sharing of personal experiences.
In the original full-length version of "How old is the universe?", before it was condensed to make this page, Sections 1-4 are expanded and the appendix contains: Theistic Action (Foundational and Active), Two Types of Old-Earth Creation, Does the gospel require a young earth?, Understanding and Respect (what I learned from a high school teacher), and Personal Experiences (of some who previously believed in a young-earth).
All topics in this condensed page — but especially "Animal Death before Human Sin" and "Why does it matter? (illustrated by personal experiences)" — are explored more thoroughly in other pages.
This page is Copyright 1998 by Craig Rusbult, all rights reserved |