Is the Appearance of the Age of the Earth Argument Valid? 

In my own experience with Christians (especially leaders) who believe the earth is very young, one of the most popular lines of argument given to explain how a young earth could be possible in light of what we know about the earth from science is to appeal to the Appearance of Age Argument (sometimes referred to as mature creation theory). Essentially, this argument claims that the earth and the universe do in fact appear old, but that is simply because they were created that way. 

The history of this argument goes back to 1857 with the author of Omphalos, Philip Gosse. Omphalos simply means “belly button” in Greek.¹ The main point was to argue that when Adam (an adult) was created he obviously would have had a belly button, thus giving him the appearance of having gone through fetal development and thus giving him the appearance of age—even on day one. One of my former preacher’s (a very gifted man) made a direct appeal to Omphaslos in one of his sermons on Genesis, so the argument is live and well after nearly 200 years. 

A Few Problems

Besides the fact that it is absolutely not obvious that Adam would have had a belly button (having one doesn’t make you human—and why would God have created him with one, if he never needed it?)², this argument is unintentionally deceptive as it does not offer a true analogy to the evidence of the age of the earth.

Before moving deeper into that analogical distinction, let’s first remember that if one appeals to an appearance style of argument, they have already conceded considerable ground. Such an argument says in effect, “Yes, all of your science is providing accurate looking and logical data, but it is only an appearance, not a reality.” Don’t miss the fact that such a concession has major implications, including the fact that the earth sciences then have to continue acting as if the earth and universe have age, while constantly remembering that they don’t.

Appearance of Age and History

However, that is not even the biggest problem with this appearance of age argument. Let’s get back to the analogy of Adam to show how it does not work. Consider our one day old Adam. We would assume that even if God had actually created him with a belly button, his body would be fresh. That is, he may look like a full grown man, but we wouldn’t expect a scar on his left knee from that time he tripped over a stump when he was ten. Nor would we expect him to have a few scrapes on his hand from yesterday’s weedless gardening. If we reason as a typical young earth creationist does, we would assume he would be perfect in body. 

But here is where this appearance of age argument utterly fails to recognize what the appearance of earth’s geological record actually is. There are scars everywhere! There are records of past events everywhere! There are millions and millions of them across the universe. Records of existence, reproduction, diversification, extinction. Records of highly specific events such as fossils with other fossils in their stomach. Records of year after year after tens of thousands of years of annual and repetitive sediment deposits. Even records with processes we can still witness today such as a super nova that declares what happened millions of years ago to our present perspective.

If we are to take the implications of the appearance of age argument seriously, none of these events actually happened. Remember, the argument has already conceded the basic presentation of the data. So, if we appeal to Adam’s belly button, it would be really more like appealing to an Adam covered in scars with implanted memories in his brain of intricately detailed events that caused them, despite not one of them ever really happening. 

This brings up the core critique I’m offering against this argument. When we get to the heart of it, it is not merely an appearance of age that we’d have to deal with, but rather an appearance of age and history. It is for this reason that many authors consider it “uncomfortably gnostic.”³ 

A Desperate Argument

As C. John Collins writes, “At the end of the day, people resort to appearance of age approaches in order to be true to the Bible. But such approaches seem so extreme that they should be a last resort, almost an act of desperation.”⁴ It is unfortunate that so many Christians feel as though they must resort to this act of desperation when there are much better ways to understand what is going on in Genesis, both exegetically and hermeneutically. 

In their book 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution (which I highly recommend), Kenneth Keathley and Mark Rooker conclude that there are at least six significant issues with the appearance of age argument. They are:

1. An appearance of age is an appearance of non-actual history.
2. The mature creation argument is unfalsifiable.
3. The appeal to an appearance of age is an admission that the evidence is against the young earth view.⁵
4. The mature creation argument seems almost to embrace a denial of physical reality.
5. A consistent application of the mature creation argument will conclude that there are no evidences of a young earth.
6. Mature creation arrives at the conclusion that we should study the earth as if it were old.

Significantly, they also conclude that “at present the mature creation hypothesis appears to be the best argument that young-earth creationism has.”⁶ 

Conclusion

Christians, more than anyone, ought to care about the importance of history. We owe it to the Church and her people, to the world we are witnessing to, and to the God of all creation, not to offer such weak arguments in defense of the truth of Christianity. At the end of the day, bad arguments do more harm than good, even if offered with good intentions. A simple, “I don’t know,” would be preferred rather than an appeal to this appearance of age argument. Nevertheless, ignorance is not the only recourse. Intellectually rigorous Christian answers to the age of the earth are out there that deal credibly with both God’s world and God’s Word. It just takes a little digging beneath the surface to get there.   

Notes:

1. C. John Collins, Science and Faith: Friends or Foes? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003), 240
2. We are going to leave aside the debate about whether or not Adam had to be created de novo, that is, created directly from dust rather than God breathing into the nostrils of some kind of hominid. It’s an important discussion, but not our point here.
3. Kenneth D. Keathley and Mark F. Rooker, 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2014), 222-24
4. Collins, Science and Faith, 242
5. Keep in mind, if this is the case, then all the efforts of the “Creation Science” movement are thus declared to be false. Young earth science as it exits would no longer exist. 
6. Keathley and Rooker, 40 Questions, 187

Photo by Kevin Rein Bantang on Unsplash