Pat writes…
I have read and studied extensively on the creation/evolution debate and find it very invigorating. I do ascribe to microevolution but find that the evidence for macroevoloution is lacking, to say the least. However, an area where I do not have too much insight is in the young earth vs. old earth debate. It is a topic that is frequently given short shrift as it is viewed as an “in house debate” among the creationist crew. Where do you come down on this topic? As I was raised, I was taught emphatically that the earth was 6,000-10,000 years old, no more. Currently, I am unsure.
Early on as a follower of Christ, I attended an Answers in Genesis seminar and was persuaded to the young earth position. For me, the most compelling argument was that an old earth view entailed animal death before the fall of man, which seemed to undermine the gospel. The idea there is that death, disease, and decay was introduced because of the fall.
Since that time, I’ve been confronted with a few problems with that premise, though. First, many animals seem designed to kill other animals. What was the purpose of a snake’s fangs and venom before the fall if not to kill? If we to suppose that these were developed after the fall, we’d be assigning creative power to the fall, which doesn’t seem appropriate. The second issue Ken brought up… Where do you draw the line on saying that there was no animal death before the fall? What about insects? How about bacteria?
Additionally, the young earth explanation for the presence of star light that emanates from stars millions of light years away does not appear to be sound. The universe appears at every turn to be ancient. So, today, I lean toward the old earth position, but don’t come down hard on either side.
I certainly view this as an in-house debate, since I can see no reason to view either position outside of the pail of orthodoxy. It may appear to get the “short shrift” because the age is a difficult question, and not clearly designated in the Bible. Both camps agree on the essentials: God specially created each species (macro evolution is false), Adam and Eve were the first humans created, they lived in a world without sin and in harmony with God, and subsequently plunged the world into a state of suffering and enmity with God.
So, we don’t want to exhaust our energy attacking each other when there is a lost world to reach. That said, there are some important issues involved in the debate that are worth having a spirited debate over.
Any thoughts on the issue out there?
The topic of the age of the Earth has become more and more entriguing the more I study the Bible. It seems that every major scientist would agree that there is an abundant supply of evidence to support that earth is millions of years old. Actually, just a few days ago I had a discussion with a close Christian friend of mine about the age of the earth, so this excites me to discuss what I have recently studied. He holds strong to the arguement that there is too much evidence that support the earth is millions of years old. But through the study of Scriptures it seems to me that the each day was in fact a day.
The theory that each day in creation represents a long period of time is known as the Day-Age theory. This is often supported by Genesis 2:4 where the word day or “yome”, represents a period longer than a day. “… in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” It is clear that this “day” does not represent one day but a group of days. The word for day here is “yome” and this is the same word used for day throughout Genesis 1. Those who believe in this theory use this verse to claim that the word day could have meant a longer period than 24 hours, and thus the earth may be millions of years old.
As stated earier, I find this theory faulty. I would have to say there is sufficient evidence in scripture that leans toward the Young-Earth Theory (Earth is 6000-10000 years old, and each day is Genesis 1 was in fact 24 hours.) I will discuss some various points that support the Young Earth Theory.
First one set of verses that does not support the Day-Age Theory would be Gen 1:27,28. If man was created on the sixth day, and that day lasted a million years, Why aren’t Adam and Eved punished for not reproducing during those million years? God commands them clearly in verse 28 to multiply. Scriptures seems to indicate they did not reproduce until some time later (Ch. 4).
Another problem with the theory would be what happened to the plants? The plants were created on the third day. So according to the Day-age theory, the plants would have been around for 3 million years before man. In Chapter 2, the creation of man is restated. Verse 5 says “…before no small plant of the field had yet sprung up.” This seems odd that after 3 million years, no small plant had sprung up. This point obviously has some speculation, but is an interesting question to think about.
A third point to argue the Day-Age theory is the the age of Adam when he died. Chapter 5 verse 3 tells us Adam was 130 when he lived. Obviuously if each day was millions of years. Adam would have had to of been much older, because it is clear that Adam lived on day six and seven.
The last point would be how would the plants, animals, and man survive the freezing nights and scorching days. If one day was a million years, the nights would be freezing cold and the days would be scorching hot.
Obvioulsy some of these points may not be as convincing as others, but I believe that some of these points seem to give a convincing argument that one day does indeed equal 24 hours.
So this leaves me with some questions? Why does the earth seem much older, and also a question you mentioned, what about the stars who are millions of lightyears away?
The first question I am not sure how to answer, help would be nice. Many Christian scholars believe the earth was created with age, but why? I do not know, it seems odd, but that does not mean it could not have happened. Also, a question I have asked myslef, could of “The flood” changed how old the world looked.
Finally, what about the stars and the lights millions of light years away. To me this seems to be answered clearly in the account of the fourth day in Genesis 1. The Bible clearly states that the stars were given to provide light and direction for people of the earth. Therefore, if they were created to give light on the earth, the moment the star was created, so was the beam of light connecting the star to the earth.
Hope I made my arguement clear and would love to hear some critiquing.
Perhaps I’m guilty of some flippancy regarding this issue because I’ve never really studied it. I think it’s because my first question leaves me with a practical obstacle:
Can we know?
I don’t think we can. Bear with me for an illustration: one of my pet peeves with TV shows and movies is where some detective, spy, CSI, whatever, will take this hopelessly small section of a fuzzy security camera photograph and blow it up to a full-screen image with razor-sharp detail of a license plate or something. You just can’t do that – it would be like taking your high school graduation picture and trying to determine what kinds of bacteria lived in a pimple on your nose back then.
You can’t do that because photography is “lossy,” meaning there is some reality that was present in the thing when it was captured that is lost in its captured representation.
I think it’s fair to say that Genesis is a “lossy” picture of creation. It gives us answers to who created us, where we came from, and how things got the way they are (in some respects). It doesn’t pretend to tell us when – it only gives us a sequence. It doesn’t pretend to tell us how God did it, except to say he simply spoke it into being.
I wonder if we don’t abuse the Scriptures by imposing on them our own standard of how much detail they should contain, and then dogmatically asserting they satisfy that standard in the face of an objective reading of what’s there.
That being said, we can be good investigators and scour it for evidence. Truth is the goal – we have nothing to fear in the truth, since we believe that God is true – so let’s let the evidence speak for itself and make a clear distinction about what we can deduce and what we must believe.
Finally, remember that science never seeks to prove anything. A hypothesis is never proven, only supported. The scientific method is to create a contrary hypothesis which, if supported, would disprove one possible answer to the question you are asking. If your contrary hypothesis cannot be supported, the answer you were considering is still viable – even a little bit stronger – because you have ruled out at least one objection. Such a method is never going to “prove” the age of the earth… but it could disprove some possible answers. (Formal logic gives us proofs, but you cannot prove that you have correctly applied the logical proof to a particular scientific observation.)
Finally, in 1931, the mathematician Kurt Godel presented his “Incompleteness Theorem” which uses formal logic to prove that some systems cannot prove their own consistency. That doesn’t mean they’re inconsistent, just that systems can’t prove themselves. For example, “This sentence cannot be proved” is an example of an unprovable sentence. If you say, “that’s right, it cannot be proved,” have you not proved it? Ah, that’s the catch – no, you have not proved it. You’ve simply ascertained that it is true. That was Godel’s larger contribution – the idea that proof is a weaker notion than truth; that some truths can be ascertained, even relied upon – but cannot be proved.
Returning to my somewhat flippant dismissal of the question over the years, I’m struck by my inability to address the questions Eric, Pat, and Tyler raise… I don’t want to degenerate into some cynic who ridicules unanswerable questions. If I wanted to do that I could just become a college professor or something. So let my contribution simply be this: let’s not get our hopes up that the Bible is going to tell us the true date of the original “Earth Day.” Let’s not dismiss what the scientific community tells us (though we must be wise to its ideological agenda). It may be enough to say “I don’t know,” but let’s make sure we can reconcile our position on the question with the charge we bear to be responsible stewards of our beliefs.
Well, it looks like we have ourselves a hot one! Tyler, I appreciate the fresh wind on this and the discontinuity that the old-earth theory brings upon a literal creation week. While there are limitations we must acknowledge, this is a great way to sharpen our critical thinking skills and knowledge of God’s Word.
With that being said, I have two points. One, the scientific priciple of “Ockham’s Razor” seems to intersect nicely in this discussion. The priciple says that we should not show multiple causes beyond what is necesary to explain the effect. Applying this principle to the argument at hand may I propose a specific application: the effect (creation) produced by the amount of force possible in the originating cause (God) dramatically reduces the need for multiple causes (as proposed within the day-age theory).
Therefore, since God has unlimited force possible, the ultimate cause, with unlimited ability to affect apparent age (He made trees as trees not as seedlings) the argument for old earth should rely back toward simplicity rather than complexity. This would lead me toward a young earth theory since God is the acknowledged cause among us, it would seem young earth would be the most simple answer. Again, the scientific principle of Ockham’s Razor. I will also point out that if we did not presume that God is the Creator for this discussion then the cause would be wildly open and we would have a much greater, and lengthy, discussion…
My second point dove-tails the first. When God created the earth He did so with the complete ability to function as a wholistic ecosphere. If this is true then the issue of age seems mute. Similar to the sun’s light being instataneously able to be seen on earth and not need to travel millions of miles, so God created the earth with the “wear and tear” of age. Think of it in this way. If God gave apparent age to the trees in the garden, lets say equal to 150 year old trees, then would not it be reasonable that the age of the earth would coorespond with comparable age. It would just be much larger since we are dealing with the earth and not a tree.
I will leave that as an option for discussion…..
I don’t think that this is too far out of the question. I don’t give credit to The Fall but God of course. Some questions I’ve always had was that due to the fall, God cursed the serpent to crawl on the ground – did it have legs before? God also made child birth painful for women – could a physical change have taken place in the woman’s body?
It is a rather large thing to imagine though – due to one act of disobedience God would redesign the entire ecosystem of planet earth. (Possibly even creating more creatures after the fact.)
And then you’ve got the whole dinosaur thing to deal with. :^)
One more question:
If you are going to take the sequence of events in Genesis at face value, which chapter do you choose – 1 or 2? There are some pretty big differences between them.
This makes me want to side with Hugh.
But Dan, wouldn’t your Occam’s Razor approach here equally justify the position that the Sun revolved around the Earth back in the day where understanding a round Earth revolving around the sun would require a much more complicated answer than the other way around? I mean God could have designed a geocentric universe, right?
Some good follow-up on Occam’s razor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
I like Newton’s version:
The key points are true and sufficient. Imposing simplicity that runs afoul of truth or falls short of a valid explanation therefore violates Occam’s razor.
So it is admittedly simpler to say “six literal days of 24 literal hours each.” I don’t think it’s any simpler to defend, however: there are too many good questions you have to dismiss to just leave it at that. If Occam’s razor is the standard we are applying, it seems we’ve been nicked by it…
Fo those new to this debate, here are some of the best resources avaialbale on each side.
Old Earth
Young Earth
I have a concern about quickly falling back on a “Well, God could have…” type of argument in the face of contrary natural evidence. The problem is that God could have done anything, but he seems to have created a universe that is internally consistent and follows basic laws. This is what has allowed us to discover more and more about it over the years. Yes, God has the prerogative to break those laws when it suits Him, and he has and does on occasion, but that is by far the exception. We need to have sufficient reason to invoke “God could have,” like creating the universe with the appearance of age. I say this because it is a very powerful veto of the natural order. Once invoked, it cannot be overcome, because who can deny it? Even something like “God could have created leprechauns and unicorns.” is true. But, if we overplay this hand, we end up with a “God of the gaps” where we plug God into anything we don’t understand (like geocentricity) only to retreat when the natural evidence becomes overwhelming and we can no longer deny it. We end up looking silly and lose our voice in the discussion. For me, the Biblical text of Genesis 1 and 2 does not seem clear enough that solar days are the only way to understand it that we should make such a strong stand against the apparent evidence otherwise. I agree with Hugh that this passage does not include enough explicit, scientific detail to be the sole arbiter. Natural revelation (the universe God created) is a valid supplement to special revelation. Since God is the author of both, we must do our best to harmonize them. If we don’t, then a watching world will have good cause to dismiss our claim that He has authored either.
I agree with Eric….. kinda. We must not bring the “veto of the natural order” quickly and lose precious insights and unfoldings of God’s creative genius, but we must also keep in mind the concept of apparent age. God did make the universe with age and without that equation how can we assign with any precision a specific age. At best we will be aiming at large time periods. At some point the “veto” does come in and we must understand that or we will be chasing shadows in the dark. The balance can hard….
Also, we must remember the nature of Genesis and it’s intent in being written. God is not like the child who has been kidnapped and drops pieces of popcorn to lead those who come looking for him or her. Nor is the writing of Genesis intended to one day be taught in a seminar to explain all that creation was in total. God is simply placing Himself at the front of the line. He is laying out the foundation of who created us and what was created (this was even limited to categories). God did not intend to explain all the particulars of how that creation occured.
Lastly, the point on Ockham’s Razor was not to diminish scientific thought, it is a buffer to guard over-thought. Science has an insatiable appetite to violate this principle in the realm of evolution (News Worlds theory, Expanding Universe theory, etc.). As Christians, we must also be mindful the tendency to want all our inquiries answered. Maybe this is the one area in which those who are in the evolution camp and those who warm themselves with account of creation find themselves sharing the same tent…..
When you say “apparent age,” you bring up an interesting point. Age, strictly defined, addresses a duration of time. At the instant of creation, everything had age = 0.
But the distinction of “apparent age” reveals a perhaps overlooked point: we use “age” as a proxy for “how far along something is.” In the special case of creation, that proxy is invalid.
Let’s consider one property a physical object has: inertia, the tendency for objects in motion to stay in motion and objects at rest to stay at rest. How can you describe the inertia of a newly-created object? There is perhaps a tendency to say “it is at rest,” because we think of things starting at some sort of zero-level. But that’s the catch – it has whatever inertia God gave it when he created it.
Therefore we ought not think of it as deceptive that something has an appearance of age when in fact its age would be zero – it’s only our experience of equating age with the state of a thing that’s tricking us. Was Adam six feet tall when he was newborn?
So a challenge: how does your predisposition to think in terms of “how old something is” confuse your thinking about “what was it like when it first appeared?” How does our thinking inside the temporal box diminish our ability to grasp God’s perspective on “age” or “state” from his vantage point of eternity?
Wow! You guys have been busy. Since I don’t have time to type long treatises, I will throw out bones and let you all fight to devour them.
First – Death as introduced in Genesis through the shedding of blood to cover Adam & Eve’s sin was the death of the innocent. This should not preclude death resulting from the natural order (i.e. predators devouring their prey in order to survive).
Second – I read most posts, scanned some – someone needs to address the dinosaur thing. It’s a big polka dotted elephant and it’s on the coffee table.
Third – if two penguins were taking a bath and one asked the other for the soap, would that make either one of the penguins a typewriter?
Bon Voyage and happy posting!
John
Everyone knows Satan planted dinosaur fossils all over the earth to make people doubt the Bible. 😉
I believe I understand what your point is, Hugh. We realy are talking about two different things. One is how long ago was it that God created the earth and the other is how old does the earth appear to be using the best evidence that we have today. The two could be very different answers. The issue, though, at the heart of my initial posting, was how long ago was it that the Great I Am created the universe.
The other point that you made that was quite insightful was in regards to the constraints placed upon our minds as we try to think and ponder about God. No matter how hard we may try, we are always limited by our “temporal box” and its parameters. This is a humbling thought as I attempt to understand how big and ponderable God is. He truly is worthy of all that we have-even in its limited context.
John, both sides have an explanation on the dinosaur deal.
Old Earth folks have no real problem. God created them and they went extinct before God created man—essentially the same as secular scientists, except without evolution.
Young Earth folks claim that God created the dinosaurs on the same day he created the other animals and Adam and Eve. So for a time, man was on Earth with the dinos, but some time later the dinosaurs went extinct. This article explains the details.
Tyler, I think you raise some good points. One thing I would say is that the day-age theory does not necessarily translate to one million years per Genesis day, but just that the days in Genesis represent progressive stages of creation that took place over varying spans of time. So, it was not necessarily a million years between the command to multiply and fall.
I don’t have enough time to comment on everything here…I will read and post later on! But believe me, this is an issue that I am very involved in.
First off, I find this statement frightening:
The idea that we would take either version of the creation account at less than face value is dangerous. There are non-literal portions of the Bible, but Genesis is an historical account. Normally, we don’t find a book in the Bible (especially one written by a single author–in this case, Moses, around 1450 B.C.) that contains both figurative and literal portions. Even when this is so, the sections are well-divided. For example, Revelation does not provide us with a completely literal prediction of the future; it’s nearly all symbolic. Leviticus gives us a strictly accurate account of the Mosaic law. Books of the Bible don’t mix the two–why should Genesis? If the last 47 chapters of Genesis (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph…) are historical, why would Moses have written analogy to begin with and then written a clearly historical document after that? Both the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 accounts are historical–the explanation of “differences” is quite simple. The sequence of universal creation (the universe and space (heavens) and our home (the earth)) is presented in chapter one; chapter two begins a detailed account of mankind, God’s special creation. Chapter one is obviously concerned with the universe in general and the entire world in general, while chapter two begins a detailed account of mankind, beginning with his creation on the sixth creation day, that continues quite nicely into the rest of Genesis. It is a natural progression from the creation of the world to a more specific account of Adam and his descendants, for it is with these men that God establishes His covenant throughout the rest of the book. From my experience with anthropology professors, it is yet another aspect of higher criticism to claim that chapters one and two contradict, with one saying the universe came first and the other that man came first. Only one step away from this error is the Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP). I have written a paper that touches somewhat on this issue, while showing that cultural evidence in the world’s literature and mythology points to the absolute historicity of the Genesis account. (I haven’t the webspace to link here…can I post somewhere or just upload? In the interim, just e-mail me if you want a copy.)
See how long it takes me to respond to something? This is why I cannot address everything else yet…but good discussion, sorry I’m coming in late. Hope someone’s still reading…
Oh yes…in the interest of privacy my email is not listed. To avoid the bots, I’ll put it this way:
jjstables at joimail.com