Why I think the Determining the Age of the Earth is Important for Christian Apologetics
First off, just a little "prologue":
Virtually the entire scientific community agrees that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, based on numerous independent tests (based in turn on predictions made by the theory of general relativity*) whose results have steadily reduced the margin of error to less than 2%. The only major proponents of a 6,000- 10,000 year old universe are Christians (or others coming from a purely religious viewpoint). The scientific evidence alone has not convinced one non-religious scientist of a young-earth position that I’m aware of (correct me if I’m wrong).
I say all this to support some of the following points:
1) Truth is important, and we have a responsibility to let good evidence lead us to closest agreement with reality as possible. There is a reason why we accept heliocentric theory, or that the earth isn’t flat. It would be silly to say, “Why does it matter to my faith whether I believe the earth is the center of the universe or not” because there is such good evidence for a heliocentric universe. Of course it matters because truth is truth. I’m arguing that the evidence, once really sifted through from all angles, is solid enough for the age of the universe to eliminate any reasonable doubt.
2) Many, many skeptics reject Christianity for perceiving it as teaching that the universe is only several thousand years old. This issue is a major intellectual obstacle for modern secular humanists, not because they are believing bad science, but because they have heard that an old universe is incompatible with the Bible.
3) “Appearance of age” theories call the apologetic value of science itself into doubt, and thereby undermine rational defenses of the faith. I’ve gone into this a bit already, but I think we need to talk about this much more.
4) Some of the best evidences for the existence of the God of the Bible only come from an old-earth perspective- especially anti-naturalistic arguments regarding the origin of the universe and the origin of life.
5) If we hold to a young-earth position we must maintain that when the entire non-Christian scientific community says the universe cannot be only 10,000 years old that they are either stupid, easily duped, or dishonest. Those are serious charges. And I think if they are basing their information on the best evidence available to them, then that puts God in an awkward position for tricking them (as I mentioned in point 3 above), rather than using “all creation to show the glory of God”.
This issue of the age of the universe should not be confused with issues related to evolution, which is a matter of much debate in the scientific community, regardless of religious affiliation, by the way.
That’s just the beginning of “why I think this issue is important” and I don’t have time to polish it, but I thought I’d get it out there and I’m sure you’ll all help me do that anyway!
Again, this is all in the spirit of honest, humble, truth-seeking among fellow travellers.
*Predictive tests being much more compelling than tests designed to arrive at pre-determined results.
Why I think the Age of the Earth Matters
Why I think the Age of the Earth Matters
Pastor Josh Coles, Aletheia Christian Fellowship
Visit the Aletheia Discussion Forums
Visit the Aletheia Discussion Forums
Re: Why I think the Age of the Earth Matters
i certainly sympathize with much of what you are saying and have thought the same types of things for a long time.
like i have said here before, i can understand scientists maybe getting it wrong, but not billions and billions of years wrong. that doesnt make any sense. nor do i believe scientists (most) are being intentionally dishonest just to protect a position, although they may be wearing some blinders due to how they have been taught.
last week i watched a lot of Apollo moon mission specials celebrating the 40th anniversary of our 1st landing. the same type of smart guys who got us to the moon are the ones saying the universe is much more than 10,000 years old. gee whiz- i have to put SOME stock in what they say.
TK
like i have said here before, i can understand scientists maybe getting it wrong, but not billions and billions of years wrong. that doesnt make any sense. nor do i believe scientists (most) are being intentionally dishonest just to protect a position, although they may be wearing some blinders due to how they have been taught.
last week i watched a lot of Apollo moon mission specials celebrating the 40th anniversary of our 1st landing. the same type of smart guys who got us to the moon are the ones saying the universe is much more than 10,000 years old. gee whiz- i have to put SOME stock in what they say.
TK
Re: Why I think the Age of the Earth Matters
TK, I have seen you say the following (or something like that) a few times now. But I don't think it is as incomprehensible as you may think
Second, most scientists are specialists. Many of them have very little training in the relevant fields (like geology) and so they simply accept the majority position. This is not a bad thing to do (it's necessary since we can't be experts on everything), but it is only as good a system as the experts in that specific area. When we realize this is the case, the vast majority argument is weakened a good bit.
Third, even those scientists that are saying 'billions and billions' and ARE trained in the correct fields often have philosophical presuppositions that, whether they admit it or not, influence their conclusions. For example, if a person has a philosophical presupposition that 'the present is the key to the past' (uniformitarianism) then they will allow that belief (that present day observations must account for present day geology) to influence their conclusions. This is why they determine that for the present processes (like erosion) to achieve the present condition of the earth (like the grand canyon), it must have taken millions of years. Given that presupposition, they are actutally NOT getting it wrong. They are RIGHT insofar as their presupposition is right. So it is not as if YECism dictates that scientists are getting their science wrong, it's really a matter of philosophy.
Fourth, we have proven examples of them being tens of millions of years wrong on some specific issues.
First, if the earth is billions of years old, then a good number of scientists ARE off by billions and billions of years because many highly degreed scientists believe in a young earth. So while the majority still exists on one side of the argument, this argument really goes both ways.i can understand scientists maybe getting it wrong, but not billions and billions of years wrong
Second, most scientists are specialists. Many of them have very little training in the relevant fields (like geology) and so they simply accept the majority position. This is not a bad thing to do (it's necessary since we can't be experts on everything), but it is only as good a system as the experts in that specific area. When we realize this is the case, the vast majority argument is weakened a good bit.
Third, even those scientists that are saying 'billions and billions' and ARE trained in the correct fields often have philosophical presuppositions that, whether they admit it or not, influence their conclusions. For example, if a person has a philosophical presupposition that 'the present is the key to the past' (uniformitarianism) then they will allow that belief (that present day observations must account for present day geology) to influence their conclusions. This is why they determine that for the present processes (like erosion) to achieve the present condition of the earth (like the grand canyon), it must have taken millions of years. Given that presupposition, they are actutally NOT getting it wrong. They are RIGHT insofar as their presupposition is right. So it is not as if YECism dictates that scientists are getting their science wrong, it's really a matter of philosophy.
Fourth, we have proven examples of them being tens of millions of years wrong on some specific issues.
Re: Why I think the Age of the Earth Matters
As for anochria's comments...
1. I agree with everything in your first point except the last sentence (of course) which wasn't supported by any evidence except the 'majority argument' (though I'm aware that wasn't the purpose of your post anyways).
2. I somewhat disagree. I don't think anyone is going to miss out on eternal life because they disagree about the age of the earth. I think they will miss out because of what they did with Jesus. It is true enough that there belief that science and faith don't match up may be a very big wall blocking them from seriously considering Christ, but so are the words of Christ themselves! We can't just eliminate anything that may be offensive merely b/c it may be offensive (as I'm sure you'd agree). YECism is NOT the Gospel. It is possible, of course, to be a Christian AND an OECist. It is even possible to be a Christian AND a theistic evolutionist. So the problem is not really YECism UNLESS that is made out to be an essential issue. But none of the major YECist ministries that I know of would say OECists can't be Christians. The issue is Jesus.
3. YECist ministries don't really use the 'appearance of age' arguments. Very few YECist experts use that argument for distant starlight. They speak of appearance of catastrophe, which is far different (and in my opinion fits the evidence better than 'age').
4. I don't really understand your point 4, since both YEC and OEC stand against full-out naturalism.
5. I responded to your point #5 in my comment to TK. I just don't agree with the point at all.
1. I agree with everything in your first point except the last sentence (of course) which wasn't supported by any evidence except the 'majority argument' (though I'm aware that wasn't the purpose of your post anyways).
2. I somewhat disagree. I don't think anyone is going to miss out on eternal life because they disagree about the age of the earth. I think they will miss out because of what they did with Jesus. It is true enough that there belief that science and faith don't match up may be a very big wall blocking them from seriously considering Christ, but so are the words of Christ themselves! We can't just eliminate anything that may be offensive merely b/c it may be offensive (as I'm sure you'd agree). YECism is NOT the Gospel. It is possible, of course, to be a Christian AND an OECist. It is even possible to be a Christian AND a theistic evolutionist. So the problem is not really YECism UNLESS that is made out to be an essential issue. But none of the major YECist ministries that I know of would say OECists can't be Christians. The issue is Jesus.
3. YECist ministries don't really use the 'appearance of age' arguments. Very few YECist experts use that argument for distant starlight. They speak of appearance of catastrophe, which is far different (and in my opinion fits the evidence better than 'age').
4. I don't really understand your point 4, since both YEC and OEC stand against full-out naturalism.
5. I responded to your point #5 in my comment to TK. I just don't agree with the point at all.
Re: Why I think the Age of the Earth Matters
Mattrose,
Thanks for the reply.
A couple things for now:
As to your points:
1) Yes, the actual evidence for an old earth deserves it's own thread for sure.
2)
3. Sorry if I made it sound like I attributed "appearance of age" to the majority of YECists. I'm glad that most have rejected that approach because it's the ultimate God of the gaps escape hatch and does nothing to further apologetic integrity.
4. Okay, I'll give you the short now and maybe post more on this. My point was that if one accepts Big Bang cosmology, then along with that comes some of the best arguments available against materialism/ strict naturalism and in support of intelligent design and the existence of a Creator. If one accepts a planet that is billions of years old, then along with that comes some of the best arguments for life not being able to have a naturalistic terrestrial origin. The point was that these particular potent arguments aren't availabe to the YECist. If you want more info on this, let me know.
5. As to the general argument from the majority, I realize this kind of argument is very low on the totem of valid argumentation. But, actually, rather than attempting to use the argument as a positive case for OECism, my main thrust in point 5 was to get YECists to serous ask themselves what they really do think about the motivations of those who hold to an OE. The least likely motivation in my opinion is deliberate deception. Your take that they are "genuinely deceived" is more plausible, but still strains credulity imho. Haha. This sounds like a "trilemma" for scientists who believe in an old earth: liar, lunatic, or _____________" I need an L word for "right on"
Lastly, I just want this debate in general among Christians to be more fact-focused and calm rather than incredibly vitriolic. Thanks for the calm approach, mattrose. It is a sign of better times to come when it comes to Christian dialogue about secondary issues.
Thanks for the reply.
A couple things for now:
I think it would be helpful if "many highly degreed scientists" could be quantified a bit more. I think this is an attempt to make a drop of water in a bucket look like a glassful.First, if the earth is billions of years old, then a good number of scientists ARE off by billions and billions of years because many highly degreed scientists believe in a young earth.
As to your points:
1) Yes, the actual evidence for an old earth deserves it's own thread for sure.
2)
Of course this isn't a matter of "essential christian doctrine" and it definitely doesn't have any bearing on one's salvation directly. As to stumbling blocks, we should be removing those that are unnecessary so that the genuine stumbling blocks (as in, the words of Christ) are all that remain.I somewhat disagree. I don't think anyone is going to miss out on eternal life because they disagree about the age of the earth. I think they will miss out because of what they did with Jesus. It is true enough that there belief that science and faith don't match up may be a very big wall blocking them from seriously considering Christ, but so are the words of Christ themselves! We can't just eliminate anything that may be offensive merely b/c it may be offensive (as I'm sure you'd agree).
My [limited] perspective is that YEC-ers often do make this a salvation issue or at least maintain that this is a matter of essential christian doctrine. I've been to hear Dr. Hugh Ross on several occasions and have been amazed by all of the rabid YEC-ists accusing him of "compromise" and "selling out the gospel". I've seen anti-Ross books that are very contrary to the spirit of respectful Christian dissent. I have never seen this kind of attitude among OECs. But again, that's my limited perspective.YECism is NOT the Gospel. It is possible, of course, to be a Christian AND an OECist. It is even possible to be a Christian AND a theistic evolutionist. So the problem is not really YECism UNLESS that is made out to be an essential issue. But none of the major YECist ministries that I know of would say OECists can't be Christians. The issue is Jesus
3. Sorry if I made it sound like I attributed "appearance of age" to the majority of YECists. I'm glad that most have rejected that approach because it's the ultimate God of the gaps escape hatch and does nothing to further apologetic integrity.
4. Okay, I'll give you the short now and maybe post more on this. My point was that if one accepts Big Bang cosmology, then along with that comes some of the best arguments available against materialism/ strict naturalism and in support of intelligent design and the existence of a Creator. If one accepts a planet that is billions of years old, then along with that comes some of the best arguments for life not being able to have a naturalistic terrestrial origin. The point was that these particular potent arguments aren't availabe to the YECist. If you want more info on this, let me know.
5. As to the general argument from the majority, I realize this kind of argument is very low on the totem of valid argumentation. But, actually, rather than attempting to use the argument as a positive case for OECism, my main thrust in point 5 was to get YECists to serous ask themselves what they really do think about the motivations of those who hold to an OE. The least likely motivation in my opinion is deliberate deception. Your take that they are "genuinely deceived" is more plausible, but still strains credulity imho. Haha. This sounds like a "trilemma" for scientists who believe in an old earth: liar, lunatic, or _____________" I need an L word for "right on"
Lastly, I just want this debate in general among Christians to be more fact-focused and calm rather than incredibly vitriolic. Thanks for the calm approach, mattrose. It is a sign of better times to come when it comes to Christian dialogue about secondary issues.
Pastor Josh Coles, Aletheia Christian Fellowship
Visit the Aletheia Discussion Forums
Visit the Aletheia Discussion Forums
Re: Why I think the Age of the Earth Matters
lucid?This sounds like a "trilemma" for scientists who believe in an old earth: liar, lunatic, or _____________" I need an L word for "right on"
Re: Why I think the Age of the Earth Matters
NICE!!!!
Pastor Josh Coles, Aletheia Christian Fellowship
Visit the Aletheia Discussion Forums
Visit the Aletheia Discussion Forums
Re: Why I think the Age of the Earth Matters
I have only had much interaction with Answers in Genesis. I have always found all of their speakers and resources to be very Christ-like in terms of humility. Sure, they boldly believe what they believe, but their website and speakers are very clear that one can be a Christian and disagree with them. Of course, I am sure that there are many YECists that are nasty to non YECists (and I'm sure the same is true for OECists).
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... efault.asp
From my perspective, I'd ask the reverse question. What would motivate a YECist to remain a YECist despite the un-popularity of that position? To me, it seems the most common motivation for such a decision is that they honestly believe that is what the Bible teaches (rightly or wrongly). If we're honest, Old Earth Creationism is not a Bible-first approach to the issue. It's a science first approach. Scientists say the earth is very old and so we re-read the Bible in that light. I'm not saying this antagonistically either. It might be RIGHT to approach scientific issues (like the age of the earth) with a science first approach (this is usually connected with the idea that the Bible is not a science textbook, which is true enough). But I think if we are honest we'd have to admit that most people reading through the entire Bible would assume that it teaches a recent creation.
I'm quite open to Old Earth Creationism. I am just more impressed with Young Earth argumentation. I think they have been a better job of being consistent in their research.
Well, for instance, here is one list provided by AIGI think it would be helpful if "many highly degreed scientists" could be quantified a bit more. I think this is an attempt to make a drop of water in a bucket look like a glassful.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... efault.asp
Yes, I would enjoy a bit more of your reasoning here. I am a YECist but I believe in a version of big bang cosmology too. I would think that if there is evidence for a young earth (Which i believe there is) then THAT would be great evidence against materialism/strict-naturalism... even better evidence.Okay, I'll give you the short now and maybe post more on this. My point was that if one accepts Big Bang cosmology, then along with that comes some of the best arguments available against materialism/ strict naturalism and in support of intelligent design and the existence of a Creator. If one accepts a planet that is billions of years old, then along with that comes some of the best arguments for life not being able to have a naturalistic terrestrial origin. The point was that these particular potent arguments aren't availabe to the YECist. If you want more info on this, let me know.
I certainly don't think Old Earth scientists are being deliberately deceptive. But let's assume, for a brief moment, that YECism is true. It is very easy to imagine some Christians being tempted to stay relevant (or avoid embarressment) by claiming they are Christian AND believe in an incredibly old earth. Christians do all sorts of things in an attempt to stay relevant and seeker friendly today.my main thrust in point 5 was to get YECists to serous ask themselves what they really do think about the motivations of those who hold to an OE. The least likely motivation in my opinion is deliberate deception. Your take that they are "genuinely deceived" is more plausible, but still strains credulity imho.
From my perspective, I'd ask the reverse question. What would motivate a YECist to remain a YECist despite the un-popularity of that position? To me, it seems the most common motivation for such a decision is that they honestly believe that is what the Bible teaches (rightly or wrongly). If we're honest, Old Earth Creationism is not a Bible-first approach to the issue. It's a science first approach. Scientists say the earth is very old and so we re-read the Bible in that light. I'm not saying this antagonistically either. It might be RIGHT to approach scientific issues (like the age of the earth) with a science first approach (this is usually connected with the idea that the Bible is not a science textbook, which is true enough). But I think if we are honest we'd have to admit that most people reading through the entire Bible would assume that it teaches a recent creation.
I'm quite open to Old Earth Creationism. I am just more impressed with Young Earth argumentation. I think they have been a better job of being consistent in their research.
Re: Why I think the Age of the Earth Matters
I am with Matt on this issue. I don't mind if the universe turns out to be billions of years old. I simply am not persuaded that the evidence that convinces most scientists of this is any more solid than is the evidence for grand-scale evolution (I know more about the latter than about the former). I believe the latter is on thin ice, and may have to be abandoned eventually. For all I know, unless old earth cosmology can answer the scientific challenges raised by young-earth forks, the old-universe view may someday do the same.
In my opinion, Christians should not try to wed their biblical interpretation to controversial scientific scenarios. That is, we should not, without compelling biblical reasons, hitch our wagon to any current paradigm which has not yet accounted for all the existing evidence. As a private Christian, free to think for myself, I have the tentative opinion that the Bible and scientific evidence may best be understood in the young-earth manner. If proof to the contrary is ever discovered, I shall not be embarrassed, and will not have brought the Bible into disrepute.
Sometimes certain "scientific" paradigms prevail for many centuries and are then found to be mistaken. If Christians make adherence to one of these paradigms a defining issue in their faith, they stand the risk of being embarrassed, and even of having their faith shattered by further discoveries (or by future popular scientific consensuses).
I feel very comfortable, when asked about my view of the age of the universe, in saying that I believe the evidence has not all been sorted out yet, but that my tentative view, while awaiting certainty, is that the evidence for a young earth seems more convincing. I should add that I take the unusual position that the earth's youth may be maintained, biblically, independently of the question of the age of the universe.
In my opinion, Christians should not try to wed their biblical interpretation to controversial scientific scenarios. That is, we should not, without compelling biblical reasons, hitch our wagon to any current paradigm which has not yet accounted for all the existing evidence. As a private Christian, free to think for myself, I have the tentative opinion that the Bible and scientific evidence may best be understood in the young-earth manner. If proof to the contrary is ever discovered, I shall not be embarrassed, and will not have brought the Bible into disrepute.
Sometimes certain "scientific" paradigms prevail for many centuries and are then found to be mistaken. If Christians make adherence to one of these paradigms a defining issue in their faith, they stand the risk of being embarrassed, and even of having their faith shattered by further discoveries (or by future popular scientific consensuses).
I feel very comfortable, when asked about my view of the age of the universe, in saying that I believe the evidence has not all been sorted out yet, but that my tentative view, while awaiting certainty, is that the evidence for a young earth seems more convincing. I should add that I take the unusual position that the earth's youth may be maintained, biblically, independently of the question of the age of the universe.
Re: Why I think the Age of the Earth Matters
Anochria wrote:
One thing that is overlooked is that scientists are people and they are influenced by peer pressure and money like the rest of us. How many research grants do you think YEC scientists receive fron the government?
When I read this I am reminded of how often the scientific community is wrong. Not just a little wrong, but very wrong. The hormone replacent therapy for women readily comes to mind. They must have preached that false idea for at least 40 years. And how the small town doctor, who discovered that most ulcers are caused by bacteria, was laughed at by the medical community until it was proven true. And I suspect the global warming theory will turn out to be wrong as well, but now they have a theory that can't be proven wrong, at least in the lifetime of most of us.Virtually the entire scientific community agrees......
One thing that is overlooked is that scientists are people and they are influenced by peer pressure and money like the rest of us. How many research grants do you think YEC scientists receive fron the government?