This post is part two of my three-part series where we look at 15 different questions related to the age of the earth controversy. Part one can be found here, and part three here.
6. How credible is the science behind Young Earth Creationism?
In some evangelical circles there is proud talk about all the scientific evidence supporting a young earth. Biblical arguments are one thing, but here we are going to discuss the scientific claims made by Young Earth Creationists (YEC). Arguments are made in a variety of areas. They include items as diverse as the lack of accumulation of moon dust, the ‘decay rate’ within the magnetic field, and the inconsistencies found in radiometric dating. The science is done by actual scientists and, if taken in isolation, it can appear quite compelling and rigorous. It is only when counterarguments are made that the weakness of the young earth presentation of the evidence is revealed.
One thing that becomes clear is that those who are trying to systematically prove the earth is young by empirical evidence alone have a common tendency to cherry-pick their data. Creation organizations such as Answers in Genesis (AiG) are guilty of these tactics. Although, to be fair, AiG has at times acknowledged some counterarguments and have fully revoked certain arguments of their own that they no longer find tenable.1
Nearly every one of the scientific arguments presented by YEC are countered by more rationally and empirically superior counterarguments in favor of an old earth position. The only piece of evidence that I have found that is even possibly more supported by the YEC position is from one Tyrannosaurus rex fossil that still contains soft tissue matter, blood vessels and protein collagens, that are difficult to understand from an old earth position. Yet, this is an anomaly (which has many possible explanations that are compatible with old earth science) and does not account for the overwhelming scientific evidence against any young earth position.2 Even Henry Morris’s son, John Morris (a YEC himself), admits that he does not know of one scientist who has converted to the YEC position from strictly observing the scientific data.3
There is one more significant point which must be considered within YEC science. There are a large number of YEC advocates who agree that the science supports an old position and, yet, they remain YEC due to their Biblical convictions. These individuals typically appeal to the Appearance of Age Argument or just general supernatural miracles. Jesus displayed his complete command of nature in Mark 4. It is likely that empirical natural data would not understand how the seas and storm were immediately calmed. We do not have the ability to empirically verify the events that defy our natural sciences. This does not mean that these events do not happen, but this is a more tenable line of reasoning for YEC than trying to manipulate empirical evidence to support their views. The preponderance of YEC who concede that the scientific data supports an old earth position complicates things for those in the YEC camp who wish to claim that it is only those who have compromised biblical fidelity who do not see the evidence as they do.
7. Is the Appearance of Age Argument credible?
In 1857, naturalist and marine biologist, Philip Henry Gosse published the first version of the Appearance of Age or Mature Creation Argument in his work titled Omphalos. The title is Greek for “belly button” and understands that in Genesis God must have created Adam as someone who appeared older than he was. He would even have a bellybutton! Thus, making it appear as if he had been born of a woman and not created from the dust just moments ago. Goose then applies the same logic to the earth and the universe. As God created man appearing older than he was, God also created an earth and universe that appears older than it is.4
At face value, the argument seems pretty solid, and most YEC rely on it either entirely or to some degree. Even Henry Morris relies on it to explain starlight. However, when the argument is more critically studied, many issues quickly arise. To conserve space, I will simply describe the problems with no more than one sentence for each issue. For a longer discussion of the status of the argument, you can read my full-length article which directly addresses the topic: “Is the Appearance of the Age of the Earth Argument Valid?”
First, there is no direct biblical support for such an argument relating to the earth and its actual appearance of old creation. Therefore, the argument is in all actuality extra-biblical. Second, it denies the reality of the vast majority of events that astronomers observe and requires one to believe that the sunlight we see every day does not actually come from the sun, as it takes over 10,000 years for photons to escape the sun’s core. Third, the theory is entirely untestable. Therefore, it is outside the realm of science. Further, it creates a “false history” within creation evidence itself.
Fourth, a consistent application of the theory creates problems for a YEC when it comes to the Genesis flood and the evidence typically used to scientifically defend the event. Fifth, a consistent application then requires that one performs all scientific studies of the earth “as if” the earth were old, all while knowing that it is not. Finally, and in my opinion most importantly, the argument has a very Gnostic tendency. It becomes very difficult for those who embrace this theory to not end up denying the physical reality of our earth and universe at some point. Clearly, those who wish to hold this theory have a lot of work to do in order to make it a more defensible position.5
8. Are Young Earth Creationists burying their heads in the sand?
With all the arguments against the YEC position, this question may be fairly asked. While I believe that those who are still trying to use scientific explanations to defend the YEC position are living in a dream world, I do not believe that all YEC are guilty of this.
As I’ve stated before, the Bible is our final authority, and we must respect Christians when they zealously hold to interpretations that they believe are required. An unbeliever might accuse such a person of having an irrational faith or a strictly fideistic belief system, yet this is not the case. Respected Christians like Albert Mohler6 and Ligon Duncan7 can offer rational defenses for YEC positions, even if many, like myself, find them unconvincing.
All Christians believe that the empty tomb of Jesus of Nazareth is only explained by His supernatural resurrection. Most Christians who have contemplated their faith are convinced of this, in part, due to the evidence presented for the historicity of this event. This belief then logically leads one to believe that Jesus is God the Son as presented in the same evidence provided for in the resurrection. As Jesus demands absolute loyalty, faithful Christians then work from this presupposition, that He is Lord of all, including all of their other studies and beliefs.
This is why Christians believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, not because we can make sense of every single passage with no difficulties, but because we are rationally convinced that Jesus Christ is God. It is very irrational to take a different stance on Scripture than the stance that God has (Jesus clearly believed in the inerrancy of the Old Testament). It is this fidelity to Jesus Christ and His Word that leads many YEC to maintain their position, as they are unable to reconcile His Word with the scientific evidence presented.
It is not always fear nor ignorance, but a carefully considered look at evidence from different vantage points and faithfulness to God. This belief system allows for an appeal to supernatural workings beyond human understanding, while also being grounded in a supernatural event that is graciously attested to with strong evidence (the resurrection). This, in turn, creates a rational worldview that allows for a systematic understanding of the physical and spiritual realities, yet without a full understanding of how every piece of natural science fits in.
All that said, while I believe it is so important for Christians of different positions on this topic to deal graciously with one another. I zealously believe the truth matters. There are strong apologetic reasons, both internal and external, for seeking to ensure that we are not putting up unnecessary and even untrue obstacles to belief. As Augustine said all the way back in the fifth-century:
If [unbelievers] find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven?8
Question 9 & 10: How do Old Earth Creationists and Evolutionary Creationists understand animal death prior to the Fall? — Doesn’t Romans 5:12 explicitly state that death entered the world after Adam sinned? (both answered together)
Of all the debates within the age of the earth controversy, animal death prior to the Fall is one of the most highly divisive areas. Without trying to write a book, I will attempt to briefly outline the arguments presented by those who accept animal death prior to Adam’s sin. The very idea of this can push hard at aspects of a YEC worldview, though it need not. Unfortunately, this can cause emotions to quickly flare, but note that the arguments themselves appeal to Scripture.
One of the first arguments made by Old Earth Creationists (OEC) is that in Genesis 1:31, God declares His creation to be “very good,” not perfect. They note that Scripture utilizes the same expression when describing “exceedingly good” land, even though it is post Fall (Num. 14:7).9 OEC see the initial creation as created with “perfect purpose,” but not as a “perfect paradise.”10
Further support is found in making a distinction between Eden and the rest of the earth. This is most clearly seen in Genesis 1:28 when Adam and Eve are told to go and “subdue” the earth, which implies nature outside the Garden needed to be brought into submission and thus some kind of tension was present. Eden was a cultivated garden. Beyond its borders, the land (and animals) were wild.
OEC also see the expression of God giving every green plant for food as merely highlighting God’s gracious provision for life or as just a general statement in reference to herbivores.11 Additionally, it is widely recognized that Genesis 1 is written in a form of “exalted prose narrative,” which should make one hesitant to interpret it with rigid literalism.12
OECs also point to Ezekiel 47:10-12 and Isaiah 65:20 which seem to show some version of post-eschatological death in the age to come (in context, it refers to fish, ironically though, only if the passage is read literally).13 This line of thought is also seen in contrasting Genesis 1-2 with Revelation 21-22 as the latter seems to depict a superior world, again showing that the initial creation was very good and yet not innately perfect. As Gavin Ortlund writes,
Augustine draws attention to the category of ‘good but imperfect.’ Evangelicals today often subtly or unconsciously assume that unfallen is tantamount to perfect, and thus disallow the category of imperfection in our view of creation. We have little or no conception of a good creation that is dynamic and developmental. Our view of pre-fallen creation is static—we think of Eden and heaven as equally immutable. Augustine also may help in this way by offering a vision of creation that is good but in development, like a lengthy poem or song.14
Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15 are typically used by YEC who claim that such passages in Scripture are debate ending passages which clearly teach that all death entered only after the Fall. However, to give such weight to those verses is not exegetically sound, as Romans 5:12 clearly shows that the passage is referring to “death spread(ing) to all men” (“ing” added by me) and not to all creatures. This is further supported by a careful look at Genesis 2:17, where God’s warning regarding the punishment of eating from the tree was that Adam would surely die: “in the day that you eat from it you will surely die” (emphasis added). Note that Adam is only told that he will die, not that death will enter creation itself. Observe further, that the text implies that Adam at least had a cognitive awareness of what death was prior to eating from the tree.15
Romans Chapter 8’s description of creation’s groaning under the bondage of futility is also used by YECs to try to end the debate. Yet there are times when the Bible describes aspects of creation as futile, such as the sun, wind and rivers (Eccl. 1:5-7), which had all been established prior to the Fall.16
To explain predatory animals, some Christians have gone so far as to give Satan credit for their creation. This is unacceptable. Especially, when we consider what God has to say about such animals and other turbulent aspects of nature. God calls natural parts of the earth’s created nature that we would typically deem “evil,” part of His work in Psalm 148.17 He takes credit for the creation of predatory creatures in Job 38-41.18 Predators receiving their food from God (eating tasty animals) is called “good” in Psalm 104:24-28.19 In praise, God is given credit for creating darkness, night, prowling beasts of the forest, and even creating calamity in Psalm 104:19-21 and Isaiah 45: 6-7.20
David Snoke makes an interesting point that we often anthropomorphize animals, and he calls this the “Bambi Effect.”21 Essentially, we add an unnecessary human element to animal death that we would not add had humanity not fallen. This argument sees that we are not as detached from animal death as we would have been if we were not subject to death as well. I do see a connection here in how we view suffering from a distance.
Recently, I saw pictures of the starvation happening in Yemen. They were devastating pictures. Yet, the distance, and probably the lack of being able to meaningfully relate to their suffering, causes a level of removal emotionally from the situation in such a way that would not be possible if I were physically present in Yemen and sharing in their experience in a more tangible way. This is not perfect analogy. However, I think it shows how humans view experiences differently depending on their ability to directly relate and connect to a given event. We assume (or just feel) animals and death are related to each other in the same way that we are related to it, but this is not biblically justified. We should not write our experience of death into an animal’s experience of it.
The Way Forward
Wayne Grudem, whose book Systematic Theology has been considered the “unofficial textbook”22 for the Reformed Resurgence, summarized the young earth/old earth debate as follows: “Although our conclusions are tentative, at this point in our understanding, Scripture seems to be more easily understood to suggest (but not require) a young earth view, while the observable facts of creation seem increasingly to favor an old earth view. Both views are possible, but neither one is certain.”23
Although I do think he is being just a bit too generous to the young earth view, Grudem goes on to say: “Progress will certainly be made if old earth and young earth scientists who are Christians will be more willing to talk to each other without hostility, ad hominem attacks, or highly emotional accusations, on the one hand, and without a spirit of condescension or academic pride on the other, for these attitudes are not becoming to the body of Christ, nor are they characteristic of the way of wisdom, which is ‘first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without uncertainty or insincerity,’ and full of the recognition that ‘the harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace’ (James 3:17-18).”24 Overall, these are wise words from Mr. Grudem. I pray we would all be diligent to heed them.
Notes
- Kenneth D. Keathley and Mark F. Rooker, 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2014), 193
- Ibid. 192
- Ibid. 198
- Ibid. 217-218
- Ibid. 220-223
- Albert Mohler and Bryan Chapell, “Were Adam and Eve Really Historical Figures?” The Gospel Coalition, March 10, 2017, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/podcasts/tgc-podcast/were-adam-and-eve-really-historical-figures/
- Ligon Duncan, Mark Talbot, Michael Horton, and W. Robert Godfrey, “Which Creation Theory is Correct?”, The White Horse Inn, June 30, 2002, https://www.whitehorseinn.org/show/which-creation-theory-is-correct/
- Quoted in: Rebecca McLaughlin, Confronting Christianity: 12 Hard Questions for the World’s Largest Religion (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 113
- Keathley and Rooker, 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution, 259
- Ibid. 260
- C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2006), 165
- J.P. Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer, Christopher Shaw, Ann K. Gauger, and Wayne Grudem, Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 861
- Keathley and Rooker, 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution, 260
- Gavin Ortlund, Retrieving Augustine’s Doctrine of Creation: Ancient Wisdom for Current Controversy, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2020), 65
- Keathley and Rooker, 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution, 260
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Quoted in: Ibid. 260
- Josh Byers and Tim Challies, “The New Calvinism: Where Did All of These Calvinists Come From?” Challies, https://s3.amazonaws.com/Challies_VisualTheology/new-calvinism-timeline.html
- Quoted in: Keathley and Rooker, 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution, 209
- Quoted in: Ibid.
Photo by Nicolasintravel on Unsplash
Further Reading
Moore Thinking 