Imagining a Young Earth
August 26, 2010
JOHN E. writes:
That’s interesting. I have to say I have never heard this argument before for a young earth. It does not discount the geological evidence, but leaves open the possibility that it is not what we think it is. I assume the earth is billions of years old but it is interesting to imagine it is not, and it is possible that it is not.
John E. writes:
I remember an old priest talking about his mother, not a particularly learned woman, but still wise. He related a story of a young student filled with hubris informing the priest’s mother of the “incontrovertible” fact that the earth was billions of years old from the time that it was created. This woman was from Brooklyn, and in her heavy Eastern accent she challenged, unimpressed, “Oh? You were there?”
— Comments —
Laura writes:
The rate of decay is an observable law and if we question that law wouldn’t we have to hold in suspension our assumption that many of the physical laws were operative from the beginning of creation?
John writes:
My point is not to say that the conclusions of radioactive testing methods are wrong, but to say that their conclusions do not merely involve scientific observation, but also philosophical assumptions, assumptions which can be challenged with intellectual consistency. I realize that I am quite safe from criticism in saying so, but my position on origins is basically an agnostic one, so I don’t really have much of a dog in the fight. I do tend toward the idea of an older earth rather than a younger, but I think this is mainly because of what I sense just by looking at the whole of creation: “as old as the hills” is much more impressive if it means millions of years rather than merely thousands.
What I don’t understand is why Adam Skelton is embarrassed by those holding a young-earth position. Actually, I think what is more embarrassing is this entry by Wikipedia, which states that “the age of the Earth is around 4.54 billion years,” without even so much philosophical humility to qualify that it is probable that it is so. One might start to wonder whether Wikipedia was indeed there when it all happened.
Laura writes:
The expectation that you and I are going to die someday is also, I suppose, a philosophical assumption, but it’s one based on observable evidence.
Adam Skelton writes:
I’d like to answer John E.’s objections to what I said about young earth creationism being intellectually untenable, all in the spirit of goodwill.
John E. starts by saying, “If holding to a young-earth position is intellectually untenable, it is the same as saying it is impossible that the earth is relatively young (say 10,000 years or younger). With what sort of evidence is Adam Skelton saying that this is impossible?”
This just doesn’t follow. He sets up this straw man of impossibility and then knocks it down. Of course it is possible that God created the earth with the appearance of age. It’s also possible that everyone else is a zombie or that the universe was created five minutes ago. But I don’t think any of these are tenable intellectually.
The proper way to approch this is to ask, given the evidence we have, and some basic knowledge or presuppositions about the nature of God, what is the most likely (I would say obvious) answer to the question? Where does the evidence lead? I think it pretty clearly points to an old earth, based on the evidences of radioactive dating, astronomy, geology, and other disciplines. These disciplines all, independently, and confidently point in the same direction, about six orders of magnitude (powers of ten) away from the young earth position. Six orders is a lot. I think astronomy alone is sufficient to put the lie to the young universe hypothesis.
But it is possible to look at these evidences and see a young earth. But you must do one of two things: throw out any notion of the uniformity of nature over distance and time, the bedrock presupposition of science, or believe that God created with the appearance of age. And in this John is right that these are ultimately theological or presuppositional issues. The first option gives you a capricious god, who created no uniform and consistent laws by which we could learn about nature. The second gives you a deceiver god. Do you think these two options are intellectually tenable?
Laura writes:
Based on the evidence, I assume that the earth is billions of years old but it is not necessary to “throw out any notion of uniformity of nature over distance and time” to accept John’s hypothetical scheme because the laws of geology could have been set in motion from that point in time. Whatever the beginnings of the universe, it was an act of caprice in the sense that it was outside the laws of nature. I’m not sure I understand Adam’s point about a “deceiver god.” We have the ability to draw these conclusions about possible anomalies in nature and therefore are not capable of being fully “deceived.”
Thomas F. Bertonneau writes:
There is an odd sectarian split when it comes to the discussion of evolution and geological time. The Catholic Church has long since embraced the ideas that the earth is billions of years old and that life evolved from primitive forms to complex ones. Many Protestants, on the other hand, seem unnerved or offended by these same ideas. Creationism, for example, is the almost exclusive preserve of the American branches of Calvinism. I say that this split is odd because evolutionary theory, especially Darwinism, and the argument for geological time both have as their generative context English society in the Victorian era – about as Protestant as one could get. Darwin himself rejected religion, it is true; but his context remains that of the society that fostered him.
The Catholic view of evolution, as articulated in the work of Father Teilhard de Chardin, differs from the Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian views in rejecting the claim that evolution is random and goalless. For Chardin, evolution reflected divine intention and was inherently good; evolution was matter’s movement toward God.
“Young Earth Theory” seems to me theologically suspect because it attributes to God what amounts to a deception. In so doing it resembles many a Gnostic doctrine. It might be useful to recall that Saint Augustine rejected Gnosticism, in the form of Manichaeism, when he found that scientific descriptions of the universe better accorded with observable facts than did mystic proclamations.
Perhaps the subtlest interpretation of paleontology is that of the British philologist Owen Barfield. Barfield argued that time is a category of consciousness, a “form” under which human beings meld their perceptions of the world into an orderly image. But if the human mind only came into existence two hundred or one hundred thousand years ago, it would be meaningless to talk about “time” before that moment. At best one could perhaps say that until then processes occurred which would have exhibited the property of duration had anyone been there to observe them. Alas, no one was there to observe them, except God. Then again, God is outside of space and time. Thus Barfield…
Evolutionary theory is not new, as most people suppose. The Greek atomists – Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus – all speculated on it in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries before Christ.
Laura writes:
I assume the earth is billions of years old based on the physical evidence, but I don’t understand why supernatural interference with the laws of nature represents “deception.” It would only be deceipt if human beings were incapable of understanding the concept of an exception or of a miracle.
John E. writes:
Adam brings up some good points, and ones that I had not considered. I see now the strawman that I set up when I equated his assertion of “intellectually untenable” with the assertion of impossibility. Still, I think his assertion of intellectually untenable is too strong, and there is more evidence behind a young earth than the mere fact that it can be logically conceived as possible. I agree the evidence that he presents points to the likelihood of an old age and it causes me, among other evidences, to assume, like Laura, that the earth is much older than just thousands of years. But the fact remains that no one was there to verify what actually happened, or the time that it took to happen. I think he says more about the nature of God than we can know for certain when he says that the intellectual plausibility of Christianity is imperiled by the acceptance of a young earth.
Rosey writes:
It is absurd to argue that a young earth is intellectually untenable, given that there are so many dedicated scientists who are debating this issue so well. There are scientifically valid answers available to anyone who is willing to step outside of mainstream academia. I recommend a viewing of the excellent documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” I also recommend reading the answers put forth by Answers in Genesis, which can be found here.
David Lee Mundy writes:
One important difference between young and old earth theorists is this. Young earth tries to match science to the Bible while old earth would have the Bible conform to science. One might ask Mr. Skeltonwhether the virgin birth is intellectually tenable? Or the miracles of Christ? The Bible rejects the wisdom of the world. What then is the point of being intellectually tenable? Are we friends with the world? (James 4:4) Should our faith rest on man’s wisdom or on God’s power? (1 Corinthians 1 & 2).
Peter addresses this very plainly in his second letter, “You must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, ‘Where is this
‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.’ (editor: see carbon dating) But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the
heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.”
Mr. Skelton may not be a scoffer, but he is sitting near the seat of scoffers who would compare our God to a “flying spaghetti monster.” For that reason, many Christians are more comfortable with the
proponents of young earth who, like their nonconformist forefathers, rejected a misguided status quo sometimes in extraordinarly strange ways.
My mischeivous side likes young earth proponents for the same reason I like those who exercise the gifts of the Spirit — because the modern, enlightened church simply doesn’t know what to do with them.
Thomas F. Bertonneau writes:
You wrote, “I assume the earth is billions of years old based on the physical evidence, but I don’t understand why supernatural interference with the laws of nature represents “deception.”
In theology I am an amateur, but here goes –
The sensitive word is “interference,” by means of which I will come to that other word, “deception.” I understand God to have established the laws of nature when He created nature; nature and the laws of nature, both good, and both really one and the same, are continuous with the benevolent Will of God, being infused with His benevolence. I suppose that God, being omnipotent, could “interfere” with the order of existence that He had established; I also suppose that He would not do so because, despite being omnipotent, God is not arbitrary. A created order subject to arbitrary interference by its creator would not really be orderly – that is to say, understandable by reason, which also comes from God. Perhaps my argument is a Platonic one: If the order of existence came from the volition of a benevolent god, then, were that god to alter the order of which he was the author, he would be contradicting his authorial benevolence; as god cannot contradict himself, as he is never other than benevolent, he does not alter the order of creation. In Augustine’s summation from The Confessions, “whatever is is good.”
Scientific hypotheses are tentative, so the billions of years of geological time indicated by the physical evidence might turn out to be a misinterpretation. Nevertheless, unlike the claim that evolution proceeds randomly and without a goal, those billions of years seem fairly secure. They have been inferred reasonably by reason and in this sense one could say that God has taught us about the order of existence, of which He is the author, in a quite orderly way, as would a benevolent teacher, employing a thoughtful curriculum, in a well-administered classroom.
What bothers me about “Young Earth Theory,” and what motivates me to use the term “deception,” is that at the heart of the doctrine (at least as I understand it – and it is in the realm of possibility that I misunderstand it) one finds the tacit but unavoidable assumption (which I omit to call a bold assertion so as to avoid being vehement) that the appearance of the natural order differs radically from its reality. (It looks old but it is really new.) If this were the case, however, the appearance would be tempting us in the direction of error. God, being the author of those appearances, would necessarily Himself be tempting us in the direction of error, something entirely foreign to our conception of a benevolent creator-divinity, who does not violate his own benevolence, and who respects the reason that he has endowed on his creatures.
Perhaps the previous paragraph leaves the domain of logic and lands itself in the domain of analogy. If I were the teacher, I would keep the lesson as straightforward as possible.
Adam Skelton writes:
A few replies to comments.
First I would like to politely steer the conversation away from evolution. While biology is another evidence which speaks to an old universe, let’s just leave it out because of the complications it causes. I think young earth believers lump an old earth and Darwinism together so that they can reject them as a package deal. Just looking at all the other evidence, what does it say about the age of the universe?
John E. says, “What I don’t understand is why Adam Skelton is embarrassed by those holding a young-earth position.”
Because it flies in the face of plain evidence and will lead many honest, scientifically literate people to reject Christianity.
To Rosey, I would say that I probably agree with everything you would say about the state of mainstream academia. But while “Answers in Genesis” may seem impressive, I don’t think in the end it’s compelling. The best that they can do is point out the assumptions of much scientific research, which is fine and admirable work, but I don’t think the young-earth catastrophism they offer instead is believable. In their view, the Flood answers all those questions about rock layers, fossilization, ice cores, etc. Okay, fine, maybe they’ve got geology licked. But what about astronomy? That discontinuity trick won’t work here. What about the distant starlight problem? What is their model of stellar and galactic evolution? I think in the end they have to either offer up some ridiculous cosmological model, or bury their heads in the sand and say that God created it to look old.
Laura says, “I assume the earth is billions of years old based on the physical evidence, but I don’t understand why supernatural interference with the laws of nature represents “deception.””.
Of course supernatural interference in the laws of nature is not deceptive, especially if God tells us about it. But creating a universe which appears, by reason, to be a million times older than it is would be deceptive.
David Lee Mundy says, “One might ask Mr. Skelton whether the virgin birth is intellectually tenable? Or the miracles of Christ? The Bible rejects the wisdom of the world. What then is the point of being intellectually tenable? Are we friends with the world? (James 4:4) Should our faith rest on man’s wisdom or on God’s power? (1 Corinthians 1 & 2).”
Yes, I think the virgin birth and the miracles of Christ are perfectly intellectually tenable. I’m not saying I disbelieve in miracles. But Mr. Mundy’s admirable attitude of rebellion against the world serves to mask an anti-intellectualism which is widespread in Christianity and is not healthy.
To the young earth believer, I would say this. Assume for a minute that the universe and the earth are billions of years old, that mankind is a late guest at the party, and that animals killed each other violently before we showed up (note nothing here about evolution). Just assume it for a second, and then ask yourself what ramifications this would have for your understanding of Genesis and the Fall. Particularly the Fall. If you honestly come to the conclusion that they are incompatible, then you will see both why many believers insist on a young earth, and why I said that if you believe in an old earth and see these as incompatible then the Christian worldview has a huge hole in it. If these three propositions are compatible with the Fall, then how so? This is something I would like to see the Christian community address. Unfortunately, the debate always seems to focus on Darwinism or some vague notion of science versus religion.
Laura writes:
Many Christians, particularly Catholics, view Genesis as both history and myth. (I use the word “myth” in the Greek sense of mythos, or sacred story, not to say that it is false.) It is history in the sense that it describes a real moment in time when man fell away spirtually from God and it is history in its affirmation of a created universe. However, it is symbolic in its account of the details of the beginning. The Christian world view is not fundamentally altered by this interpretation and none of the three propositions you mention are incompatible with it: the earth is billions of years old, mankind is a late guest at the party, and animals killed each other before humans arrived. Holding this view, I don’t have any theological attachment to the idea of a young earth. I have no reason to question the rate of geologic decay, although I acknowledge that it is conceivable that the rate changed. A young earth requires a belief in a radical departure from the laws of nature and possibly, as you and Mr. Bertonneau say, a form of deception.
Clark Coleman writes:
Proponents of a young earth often believe that “death came after the Fall,” which means that there was no physical death before sin. The obvious answer is that “death” refers to spiritual death, separation from God, of which there was none prior to the fall.
An interesting theological problem for the typical young earth view in this matter is that a beautiful, orderly creation must balance procreation with death. Did God’s original design for plants and animals involve no procreation? That would be bizarre theology, and there is no evidence for it in scripture. Did God’s original design call for procreation but not death? In that case, sin would actually be necessary in order for things to turn out well. Otherwise, animals would reproduce until they were standing shoulder to shoulder across the entire land mass of the earth. And then what? Making the orderliness and balance of Creation dependent on sin is theologically troublesome.
An even more urgent example is bacteria. They reproduce and die very quickly in the intestinal tracts of animals and humans. A lack of death would be a big problem in a matter of days.
Were carnivores created with the carnivorous teeth and digestive systems that we now see, in which case sin had better hurry up and happen, or was creation modified after the Fall to turn them into better carnivores, in which case we have yet another unlikely implication being “solved” by proposing divine interventions that are not mentioned in scripture?
I was a young earth creationist as a teenager, but it is not a well thought-out system of Biblical interpretation. To insist on one interpretation of “death” when it leads to one problem after another, when the alternative use of the word “death” is found throughout Scripture, is a sign of the flawed interpretive method we are witnessing.
John E. writes:
The evidence indicates that the earth is billions of years old, so I obviously have no problem with that position. A scientifically literate person shouldn’t be bothered by the fact that some Christians hold to a young earth when there are also many Christians that hold to an older earth, in harmony with the scientifically literate person’s understanding. My objection is to the castigation of certain Christians as intellectually inconsistent because they don’t recognize the certainty of something which cannot in fact be known with certainty.
One thing this discussion has made me consider, which I hadn’t really thought of before now, is the motivation behind accepting a young earth position. If a Christian has a theological system that depends on a young earth, then I believe that theological system to be faulty. However, I think there are some serious and intellectual Christians who could accept the theological possibility of a very old universe, but simply think the evidence points to a younger earth.
John adds:
If a person’s theology does not allow him to accept the possibility of a universe that is billions of years old, I think it is a faulty theology; on the other hand, if someone’s understanding of science is such that he requires that God had to have created the universe billions of years ago to accept Christianity, I think his understanding of science is faulty. I see a problem with someone who says that Christianity cannot be true if Christianity does not recognize the universe as billions of years old to the exclusion of other possibilities.
What I am trying to express is the wisdom that I see in the mother of the priest I was talking about at the beginning of this discussion. This wisdom does not balk at scientific evidence, or scoff at intellectual curiosity, but it also humbly and simply recognizes the limits placed on the nature of our understanding as humans, and will not grant absolute certainty to a position that cannot in fact be known with certainty.
Aservant writes:
I highly recommend the mountains of hard scientific evidence presented by the scientific community over the last several decades that directly refute evolution and cast serious doubt on the theory that the earth can be proven to be billions of years old. The best place to start is by watching the video “The Young Age of the Earth”, produced by Earth Science Associates. I also highly recommend the book, “That Their Words May be Used Against Them”, by Henry M. Morris. You will see hard evidence that shows how oil and coal can be produced in a matter of months, not the eons that we are told is absolutely necessary by the “accepted” scientific norms. Also presented is a very credible explanation, published in major scientific journal decades ago, and never refuted, that shows how the formula for calculating geological age is massively flawed.
Here we are, as a world, on drugs, addicted to porn, massively in debt, there are probably 100 different wars happening at least around the world as we speak, the powers that be are beating the war drum again, this time to send thousands of our sons and daughters to Iran to die for the agenda of the rich and powerful, a collapsing social fabric, violence is celebrated, the incompetent are rewarded for stupidity, crassness and ignorance are admired, and we are debating where we came from and what we “know” happened millions of years ago? Human arrogance is just astounding. We are told that this information is vital for “progression.” Are readers not completely convinced that it is very possible that we are approaching some of the most trying tests ever given to man? On a spiritual level, the real deal, how is this progression, assuming that progression has a positive association with the word “progress”, as synonymous with improve, bettering our existence? How is understanding what frogs could have been at one time going to balance our budgets, or get people off dope, or inspire the youth to be responsible and hard-working? I would say it is only adding a massive burden to a load that is already crushing us.
Rosey writes:
This is a very lively and interesting discussion! Thank you Adam, for your responses. I have a science degree, but it’s in nursing- I’m a far cry from being any sort of expert in astronomy or any of the other relevant disciplines. But I would like to point out that there is scholarly work being done towards an improved position regarding the astronomy problem. An excellent starting point is this article from the Institute for Creation Research, called “The Light Distance Problem.”
Josh F. writes:
Aservant suggests a salient point when he implies that the embrace of old earth theory has only the effect of convincing us of our inevitable annihilation. Outside of this “knowledge,” the practical
benefit of “knowing” that earth is billions of years old is nil.
But there is a larger problem with old earth theory that duplicates the falsity of liberal orthodoxy in general. Devout liberals embrace relative “truth” while denying Absolute Truth. In much the same way, liberal “scientists” claim evidence for an earth aged over billions of years while those very same “materialist” scientists have boldly asserted that TIME DOES NOT EXIST at the most fundamental material level, the quantum level.
In fact, the MAIN assertion of the theoretical physicist concerning our absolutely material world is that all that exists is… NOW…NOW…NOW…, “Now” being a particular material configuration comprising the totality of the universe. There is an infinite array of these particular material configurations that “exist” as probabilities with the accepted fact that ANY particular material configuration is possible, NOW. Meaning any “series” of particular material configurations is possible, NOW… NOW… NOW… Meaning, we can manipulate the “NOW” if we can manipulate the material.
The question that then remains is whether OUR perception of these successive “NOWS” is actually uniform at the fundamental level so as to “produce” time? But as was stated before, there is NO TIME at the fundamental level, as asserted by science. So we “see” time when it doesn’t exist at the fundamental material level. Radical autonomy asserting itself?
Furthermore, those very same liberal “physicists” assert that what we “observe” manifests at the quantum level. Meaning, WE “SEE” old earth and old earth manifests at the quantum level where space-time is non- existent. In short, old earth is a mass illusion, as is all of reality, according to “science.”
This is the lure of liberalism. And liberalism has a vice grip on “science.”
Laura writes:
Outside of this “knowledge,” the practical benefit of “knowing” that earth is billions of years old is nil.
Our schools constantly harp on the earth’s immense age. The purpose of this is to promote materialism and diminish the significance of humanity and the individual.
Josh writes:
What evidence, exactly, is there for a 4.5 billion year old earth? Pick up any stone and ask yourself, “Does this look billions of years old?” What is it that we see that tells us that human life is hundreds of thousands of years old? The reality is that NOTHING we see looks 10,000 years old, a million years old or a billion years old.
And so the scientist jumps in and proclaims, “You have not looked deep enough.” So he puts the rock under the microscope and says, “Look, evidence of old earth.” But therein lies the problem. When the scientist is forced by his own science to “observe” deeper, time does not exist. The notion of aging fundamental matter is refuted by the science. The decay is nothing of the sort. There is only a particular material configuration comprising the whole of the universe, NOW. No time and no space is discerned.
Instead, we “observe” a particular material configuration that says “old earth.” It is the dominant collectivist meme that is then manifested at the fundamental material level. We “observe” old earth
and an “old earth” material configuration manifests.
Of course, this is entirely backwards to how we have come to know the world. The idea that the universe IS TO BE what we “observe” is the base assertion of the materialist scientist and sweet music to the ears of the radical autonomist.
John E. writes:
Thanks for posting this discussion.
There is another angle to this which goes beyond the consideration of whether one has compelling evidence or not to support an assertion. The point raised by Adam suggests that there is something deficient in the beliefs of those Christians who support a young-earth theory of origins, because they do not have sufficient reason to support their theory. However, isn’t there something lost in understanding the essence of faith, if one is required to have all of your ducks of reason in a row before one can experience the fullness of faith? To illustrate, I bring up the instances of the many claims of Marian apparitions in the past few centuries, and the disposition of the Catholic Church in relation to these apparitions. In all of the cases of approved Marian apparitions (Guadalupe, Lourdes, Fatima, Knock, et al.), the Church approached the claims with skepticism, but judged the evidence of their reality as compelling enough to propose each of the approved occurences as worthy of faith and devotion. What the Church did not do, and still does not do, is require any faithful Catholic to accept these apparations in order to be considered a Catholic in good faith. In other words, as I have also heard it said, to reject belief in these apparations may very well be an offense against good reason, but it is not an offense against faith. At the risk of overstatement, it is possible to be faithful without being reasonable.
To apply this to the question of origins (which I don’t think has as compelling evidence for proof one way or another as to time frame, as do the approved apparations as to their actual occurrence), we do injury to our concept of faith if we make it somehow a condition of faith, to accept a particular line of reasoning. This is different than saying we don’t need reason at all, or that coming to faith through a reasoned process is deficient. Reason serves Christianity quite well, and I have found nothing to make me think otherwise. But it is necessary to keep a proper distinction between the essences of both faith and reasoning. The person who has faith, but rejects something reasonable, may very well be putting his faith in danger by his rejection of reason, but he still has faith. Adam might well challenge whether a young-earth theorist makes a good scientist, but I think he goes wrong in suggesting he makes a bad Christian.
Clark writes:
