How Not to Talk About the Age of the Earth

Last month I was at an apologetics conference at Palm Beach Atlantic University. One of the key note speakers was Erica Carlson. She is professor of physics and astronomy at Purdue University. She has her Ph.D. in physics from the University of California. She is doing some exciting research on electrons and quantum materials. She is a visiting scholar for Reasons to Believe and speaks on science and faith issues. Basically, she’s a respected, super intelligent, well-educated, Christian scientist.

During her lecture, it was easy to see why. She spoke with clarity, conviction, intelligence, and humility. She was able to take complex subject matter and help to flesh out its relevance in a relatable and easy to understand fashion. She also hosted one of the breakout sessions during the conference. Her topic was on the Big Bang and Scripture, and the room was packed. 

Again her tone of delivery was both warm and engaging. Additionally, she was very forthcoming about the depth of struggle this issue caused her faith. Like so many, including myself, trying to figure out how to make sense of both Genesis 1, and the extraordinarily compelling and systematic evidence for the age of the earth and this universe caused her a serious faith crisis. Eventually, like myself, she came away with a deeper understanding of Scripture. The problem was never Scripture (nor this particular scientific fact), but rather an incorrect interpretation of Scripture. Now, she is able to both believe in the ancient age of the earth and universe, and has a better, more accurate interpretation of Genesis. 

(As a brief aside, I actually don’t hold to her exact interpretation. I did for a time, but I’ve shifted a bit in regard to the hermeneutical approach she uses, despite thinking her exegesis is fine—oddly enough, I almost exegete the same way with an analogical interpretation, but draw different conclusions of what’s being said due to the hermeneutic I hold, which allows for less literalism than hers. But, I don’t care—I respect the interpretation and believe it is much better than some of the other options out there.) 

During this second lecture, she was working verse by verse through Genesis 1. Like any good instructor she was engaging with the class, which in turn allows for some class interaction. Nevertheless, within a very short time, it became clear that there was an unhappy member of the audience—and a very vocal one. I was actually afraid this was going to happen. During an earlier encounter at the conference, I met this individual who quickly moved the conversation to his young earth creationist convictions. Which, of course, is fine, but there was a fear that he would be “one of those” young earthers. Sure enough, my intuition was spot on. 

By four different accounts (including a different young earth creationist who I’m friends with), the man was utterly obnoxious. He was constantly interjecting his opinion. In a crowded room, almost every question she asked received a very firm and dogmatic opinion from this man. As much as the Christian in me wants not to criticize, I believe this topic is too important, and this type of young earther is just too common not to address it. His actions were inappropriate to the setting and disrespectful to both the speaker and the audience, regardless of his intent.  

In a certain way, and without trying to be mean, no one in that audience cared about what that man thought. We were present to hear the educated and professional opinion. We were there to hear the speaker. But this is predictable. When individuals like Ken Ham and organizations like Answers in Genesis have made this a theological hill to die on, they will create these kinds of disciples. They are all too common. This isn’t the Gospel. This isn’t inerrancy (she affirmed it about six times). This isn’t even baptism. This is the age of rocks. This is about the age of space rocks. Are there a lot of major implications and important questions that arise from some of these matters? Of course. But come on, to treat the general age of the earth issues with dogmatism is a gross misdiagnosis. 

Interestingly, I had a conversation with a vendor who also attended that breakout session. He works for an apologetics organization. As we were talking about the situation that occurred, he brought up a story where their organization hosted an event to talk about age of the earth issues. Originally, they were planning on having it be a discussion between evolutionary creationists and old earth creationists. However, they decided to the give young earth creationists a voice. They deeply regretted that decision. They were also obnoxious. They were prideful, arrogant, rude, and just generally mean spirited. All in the name of Christ, right? They were not invited back. 

The sad thing is that this is predictable. More than that, it is actually expected. The average old earther or evolutionary creationist has had just too many negative interactions with dogmatic and aggressive young earthers, that it is just what we have come to anticipate from the lot. Of course, that isn’t true. There are some extremely humble and wonderful and Christ-like young earth creationists who I’d be happy to recommend. For instance, Paul Nelson has always seemed like a balanced and humble young earther who is a far better representative of the group. This post isn’t a critique of young earthers in general, it’s a critique of a certain type. 

Part of the irony of the this whole aggressive approach is just how often the fruits of the conversation are at complete odds with the call of the Christian. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control. Just how persuaded do think other Christians are going to be when the dominant voices of a group are displaying none of these? An argument won is nothing if the way in which it is conducted is  not ruled by the Spirit. The aggressive young earther not only leaves a trail of damage in their wake, but hurts their own cause. Sure, they might get some high-fives from those already intrenched in their own camp. But those on the other side? Those in-between? Even those on the sidelines? They will not be impressed. They will not be persuaded through such hostility and aggression. And most importantly, even if they are right, Christ will not be honored. 

As a last thought, I believe it is important to remind those who are old earthers (in all our great diversity), that we too can greatly err in our approach. We too must be ruled by the same Spirit if we are to win others, and even more importantly, if we are to honor Christ. If we have a tendency toward error, it is surely toward arrogance and disdain. It can be far too easy to feel superior and to look down on others from this side of things. May it never be! Even if met by the most hostile individual, we must bless when we are cursed. We must be humble, open to reason, and allow others to hold to their own views on these issues just as we too zealously hold to our own. But a zealous conviction need never be at odds with a Christ-like spirit and Spirit filled speech and behavior.