Tag: Evolution

Posted on Posted in General, Q&A No Comments

1005409_18237777Anonymous asks:

What do you think about this article on the age of the earth? http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth

The material is from a creationist book that has sold 350,000 copies. I believe he did a good job of arguing his case. The videos are good as well.

Hi Anonymous, Thanks for the question.  For my broader thoughts on evolution/creation I have an earlier post: here

You ask specifically about a particular article (linked above).  I don’t have time to do an in-depth consideration, or check out the videos, but an overview reading shows nothing surprising.

The age of the earth is a bone of contention in this debate.  Evolutionary theories require an old age for the earth (read millions of years), and some (not all) creationist theories require a young age for the earth (read 6,000 years).  The 6000 years figure derives from genealogies and other data from the biblical text and equates broadly (and understandably) to the broadest scope of recorded history.

The issues is therefore a question of “prehistory” – evolutionary theories posit an extensive prehistory.  Certain creationist theories posit that there is no prehistory, unless you count the five days that preceded the creation of Adam.  There’s a big difference.

The referenced article rehearses the typical attempt at rebutting evolutionary claims about the age of the earth.  These are:

  • Sedimentation and other geological metamorphoses do not require millions of years to occur.  In particular, they can occur very quickly if you allow for a global cataclysmic event such as a global flood.
  • Radiometric dating makes assumptions about the initial level of isotopic ratios and their nett rate of decay in the presence of environmental factors.  Anomalous results for known geological events are cited.

And there is a similar rehearsal of apparent evidence for a young earth, namely:

  • The seas are not salty enough.  (Ironically, this is a macro-level equivalent of the radiometric dating technique, and makes the same assumptions – initial state, environmental impact on a non-closed sytem.)
  • Similarly, the moon is too close, their isn’t enough helium in the atmosphere, and there aren’t enough supernovae.

To which my response is a deliberate “meh.”  I’m tired of these debates, not because I’m overwhelmed by totalising scientists and have decided to throw in the towel, but because the important stuff is not in this debate.

The bit of history that I’m most interested in is the last 6000 years, which everybody agrees has existed.  I’m interested in this bit of history because it’s the bit has people in it, and I’m interested in people.   As far as prehistorical facts go, the Bible tells me little if anything, apart from the fact that God did it, and it was good, and we made it bad.

The age question is not even relevant to some of the bastions of creation science.  You don’t need a young earth to have a biblical global flood.  You don’t need a young earth if you posit cosmological timeframes between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 and attribute the six (literal) days to God’s creative intervention, preparing a home for his people, on an all-ready created (as part of the “heavens and the earth”) that was as yet unshaped/unmade/unformed.

So, in my mind, the age of the earth is a non-essential point, in a non-essential debate, and has little bearing on the truthiness of Scripture.

Photo credit: http://www.sxc.hu/photo/1005409

Posted on Posted in Q&A 9 Comments

Anonymous asks:

Do you believe in biological evolution – in terms of the origin of life?
It might sound like a strange thing to ask a Christian, but some people believe that it is plausible that God created the evolutionary process and that the Genesis 6 days of creation were not literal 24 hour days, allowing to marry old earth theory (billions of years) with the bible.
There was a time when I used to hold to this belief.
Big topic I know, but in brief, what’s your take?
Cheers

🙂

Hopefully you won’t be upset by something of a non-answer here.  Why the non-answer?  Because this is a topic that divides Christians and needlessly complicates the gospel message as seen by non-Christians.  At a certain level the question (or rather the precise answer) of origins is a secondary one.

This is not to say that I am anything-goes though.  I am a creationist – note that I haven’t said ‘Creation Scientist’ or ‘Young Earth Creationist’ or other such thing – my non-answer remains.  I do firmly believe that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them.

Further I believe that Genesis has much to tell us about creation.  Genesis affirms (in significant contrast to many creation myths) that God is the agent of creation, that he creates ex nihilo, that creation is well-ordered, purposefully and inherently good.  Genesis gives me insight into the relationships between humanity and the world, humanity and God, and within humanity itself.  I look to Genesis and I learn about stewardship and toil, marriage and intimacy, faithfulness and obedience.   I recognise the origins of the sin that I see in myself, I recognise the grace of God that we now know fully revealed in Jesus Christ.

Genesis is the Word of God.  It is Truth.

I do not necessarily see in Genesis the outworking of how God did this.  The genre of early Genesis is more akin to apocalyptic writing such as Revelation than narrative history.  That is not to say that it is not historical.  It has internal consistency and there is sense in the narrative however it is taken – absolutely literally, imprecisely literally (such as the “gap theory”), descriptively literally, etc. etc.

I am a person who is well-schooled and well-educated.  I understand what science is, and is not.  I understand its bounds and recognise the questions it can and cannot answer.  I know the difference between science that postulates, experiments and repeats, and science that observes, extrapolates and contends.  I am aware that statements of extrapolated facts given by some scientists are at least over zealous, sometimes even biased.

I disagree with how many humanist rationalists attempt to use Genesis – asserting “this is what the Bible absolutely literally says, and it is stupid.”  I also disagree with many religious rationalists who make a similarly wrong step, just in the opposite direction “this is what the Bible absolutely literally says, and we should take it absolutely literally like that irrespective of other inputs.”

So, I rejoice that God has made me, designed this world.  I rejoice in its beauty, I ache for its woundedness, I long for its redemption.  I am, therefore, a non-answer creationist, and that is all.

image_pdfimage_print