Ancient Earth or Young?
Aside from the fraudulent concept of biological evolution, the Bible-believing Christian is confronted with the question of the age of Planet Earth and the cosmos in which it exists.
Evolutionists need an Earth billions of years old to posit their materialistic hypothesis, but even billions of years cannot provide even the tiniest mathematical possibility of evolution as the explanation for all life on Earth.
Young earth creationists, in support of their “creation science,” think that they need an Earth and cosmos only a few thousand years old. Then they can support their reading of the book of Genesis in the Bible.
Though biologic evolution is clearly fraudulent science, the great preponderance of observation and valid science strongly indicate the Earth and cosmos are vastly more ancient than a few thousand years. Simple observation by ordinary people like me, and acceptable data from the sciences of geology, radioactive decay and astrophysics, to name a few, strongly suggest that our home planet is a great deal older than a few thousand years.
Evolutionists link their false science of life with the credible science of ancient Earth to give evolutionary “science” a “factual” and respectable veneer. This linkage is effective in that it causes young earth creationists to lose credibility when they oppose the science and data that support an ancient Earth and cosmos.
“Scientific creationists” have tried to dismiss ancient Earth and cosmos with a variety of arguments. One such argument is their attempt to prove that the speed of light has changed over time, and that what Einstein demonstrated as a universal constant is not constant but changing. Hence their “creation science” contradicts longstanding tested and proven traditional science.
The many contrived proofs of young earth “creation science” are for me, and many others, hard to follow and understand, creationist museums with dinosaur skeletons notwithstanding. That is not to say that they are absolutely wrong, but simply that I and other Christians find their various arguments in proof of a young Earth less than convincing, scientifically speaking.
One problem for us is that some of the “scientific creationists” accuse us of not being true Christians, if we do not interpret the Genesis creation account the way they do and reach their conclusion of a young earth. Hence for “scientific creationists” the young earth interpretation of Genesis becomes a litmus test for genuine faith. I think it may be dangerous exegesis of Holy Scripture to make human interpretation of God’s Word the defining standard of orthodox Christian faith.
At this point the Christian who trusts the Bible as God’s infallible word is caught up in a conundrum that severely tries his or her faith. If one accepts the Genesis story of creation and the Bible’s Creator God, then one must apparently accept the young earth creationist view, or be accused of being apostate and unscriptural, at least according to the young earth creationists.
If the Christian accepts an ancient Earth and cosmos, then it appears that he or she must also accept the hypothesis of evolution as the explanation for life on Earth. Many, including respected theologians and seminarians, have attempted to overcome this consequence by speculating that God used evolution in His creative process. They use terms such as “theistic evolution” to compromise the Bible with evolution. Such bastards of thought, far from honoring God or increasing Christian faith, have engineered atheistic evolution right into the mainstream Christian church. Such philosophic compromises have served to decrease faith in God, just as Professor William Provine declared,
“Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.”
The young earth creationists are much more credible in their reading of Genesis in the Bible than the compromising seminarians who introduce the engine of atheism into their Bible teaching. The creationists read Genesis with greater literary integrity than any of the many other schools of interpretation, which have arisen since evolution became the dominant, but false, trend of thought in the supposed Age of “Reason.” I think their handling of the historical veracity of Genesis and its literary structure is correct. I think they are correct in believing that the Genesis creation account is a factual recording of what God did and communicated to Adam, who then recorded it for the sake of his posterity, which includes all of us today.
At this point it may appear that I am confused and contradicting myself. But all I have done is to lay out the contradictory and confusing views about creation, evolution and the age of the world that exist today and that produce heated debate and doubt among Christians. I have not done so in order to support one or the other of the stated views. In fact, I find it impossible to accept any of the positions thus far presented, because I think they all suffer from a single incorrect presupposition. It is that presupposition that has misled us into the irresolvable conflict and indefensible conclusions that harass and torment us today. It is that presupposition that tempts many Christians to compromise the Bible and their faith with evolution, “the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.”
Rather I seek to underline the common presupposition that underlies all of the views thus far presented, and show how it leads to unsettled debate and compromise. But I think there is an alternative to the standard arguments; this alternative is based upon a critical reading of Biblical texts. The alternative is suggested by a different presupposition that renders the contemporary debates moot, that upholds the integrity of true science, ant that brings glory to the one true God revealed in the Bible—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This will be the subject of the next section of this essay. But first, let me review and summarize my take on the debate.
A Summary of the Quandary
To be clear about what has been said so far, allow me to briefly and clearly summarize:
1. I think that Planet Earth and the cosmos are billions of years ancient.
2. I do not think that an ancient Earth supports the presupposition of biological evolution by natural selection, or any other mechanism thus far hypothesized.
3. I think that “evolutionary science” is fraudulent because it is not demonstrated by hard evidence but is based upon presupposition and facile extrapolation from the well-known fact of intra-species adaptation to the hoped for fact of change from one species to another. Such extrapolation “enters into the realms of miracle, and leaves those of science,” just as Darwin described. And it is that “miracle,” that Darwin rejected, which has been mandated by his intellectual progeny ever since to explain the pre-supposed “biologic fact” of evolution that “competent students . . . and “thinking people” must accept.
4. I think that the young earth creationists read Genesis with grammatical and literary integrity, but I do not agree with their young Earth conclusion, because the preponderance of observation and hard scientific evidence seems to indicate a vastly more ancient age.
5. Since biological evolution does not explain the manifold forms of life on earth, or the expansive near infinite universe we see, I think that the only explanation for everything, as defined by atheist George Wald (mentioned earlier), is creation by a supernatural Creator, Who is external to the entire world that we observe.
Once we arrive at a supernatural Creator as the Cause of the world, we arrive at a confusing a contradictory plethora of religious beliefs. I cannot in this limited space dissect the web of human religions, but I can make a few brief observations.
First, we live in a world that is marvelously constructed according to extremely improbable tolerances that constitute evidence for design by Supreme Intelligence. Even the Roman lawyer Cicero (60 B.C.) recognized this truth in his publication on the nature of gods (Marcus Tullius Cicero. De Natura Deorum). Cicero’s observation is the logical basis of the convincing “Intelligent Design” position in the present debate over evolution vs. creation. The apostle Paul elaborates this position in Romans 1:18-32.
Second, we ourselves are personalities, not impersonal or instinct driven animals or inanimate plants or non-living objects. Personalities are, by philosophic necessity, creations of a Person, not an impersonal mindless process. Put differently and simply—It takes a Who to create a who. An It cannot create a who.
Third, as we look at the confusing plethora of religions, they may be broadly grouped by their respective “gods,” and such a categorization helps to define religious truth for those willing to receive it. As personal beings we must bear the image of the Person that created us. That Person must necessarily be outside of the unimaginably vast and complex universe that He created. That Person must be infinitely beyond His creation, not trapped or defined within it.
Hence the only rational religion must have a God Who is both Personal and Infinite. The Holy Bible is the only religious text and tradition that reveals such a God.
Eastern gods are infinite but impersonal; they are “it’s” that cannot create “who’s.” Eastern gods have no interest in the condition of questioning and suffering human persons.
Western gods (Roman, Greek, Germanic, and Egyptian) are personal to the point of being caricatures of humans with characteristic human flaws. But western gods are not infinite. They are caught up in the world and part of it. They are personal but not infinite, and they are not external to the world but confined within it.
Only the God of the Bible is both infinite and personal, so only the Bible’s God is able to create a world external to Himself and populate it with personal beings who bear His personal image. Only the Biblical God cares about His creation and seeks to redeem it. Though His created persons have fallen away from Him by their rebellion, the Biblical God still loves them and acts to restore them to healthy relationship with Him.
Hence I think that the Biblical God has revealed Himself as the only logical Creator among a plethora of humanly contrived religions.
My purpose, as indicated in the title of this essay, is to provide an alternative hypothesis for Bible-believing Christians that resolves the palpable tension that arises from the debate over the age of the earth and origin of life on earth. Though evolutionary biology is clearly unprovable and fraudulent, the world appears to be vastly more ancient that young earth creationists will allow in their reading of Genesis. But if I reject the young Earth hypothesis, which is derived from a straightforward reading of the Genesis creation account in the Bible, then I necessarily reject the historic and literal accuracy of Genesis. If I reject the historic nature of the creation account in Genesis 1-3, then I necessarily reject the need for human redemption and a redeemer. Thus to reject Genesis is to render unnecessary and irrelevant the remainder of the Bible’s account of God’s purpose to redeem fallen humans through Jesus Christ. Rejection of Genesis makes Biblical Christian faith unnecessary and empty of meaning.
No Christian who recognizes the beautiful and rational truth of the Holy Bible’s account of God’s love through Jesus Christ can so easily dismiss the truth of the Genesis creation account. The sincere Christian responds to this conundrum by redoubling his or her faith and trusting God for ultimate answers.
Such renewed emphasis on faith in God’s word is an acceptable position, because, after all is said and done, there is a universe of things and concepts beyond human understanding, which cannot be complete and final when viewed from our finite present moment. This is why the Bible declares to the faithful a promised peace that surpasses understanding (Philippians 4:7). Since understanding everything will always exceed our human abilities, peace is better than understanding, provided it is peace with God, Who does understand everything.
This reasoning is clearly manifest in the Genesis 2 and 3 account of the first man who presumed to violate the single prohibition in his entire world—to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which is the knowledge of everything that defines morality and human relationships. Man’s rebellion and presumption to take on himself the knowledge and prerogatives that that belong to God, and that only God can manage, is what has separated humanity from God. This human rebellion and presumption initiates and motivates God’s redemptive process from start to finish throughout the Bible.
In the spirit of peace in and with God, I propose an alternative view to standard irreconcilable arguments described above. It is a view that will necessarily stretch human credibility, because it is a view not based at all on human science or observation. It is a view that is necessarily based on the very words of God in His Holy Bible. It is these words that I would like to present in a new light to Christians who are willing to trust God’s words above their own human notions and presuppositions. It is a view that can replace a presupposition that is shared by Christians and atheists alike.
Leave a Reply