Having told you why I am skeptical of the idea of an ancient (millions or billions of years old) earth, I would like to give you some of the data that lead me to believe in a young earth. I am certainly open to changing my view on this, as I see no inherent reason to believe in any specific age for the earth. However, based on what I know about science right now, it seems to me most reasonable to believe that the earth is on the order of thousands of years old, and it seems to me incredibly unscientific to believe that the earth is on the order of billions of years old. So over the course of the next few weeks, dear reader, I hope to present to you my “top five” reasons for thinking that the earth is young.
Before I do that, however, I need to provide bit of scientific philosophy on this issue. I don’t think most scientists are equipped to evaluate this question, at least not in any scientifically meaningful way. In fact, I personally think that creationists are the only people who can address the age of the earth scientifically. I don’t think that all creationists are qualified to address this issue (as will become apparent in a moment), but I don’t think a single committed evolutionist is qualified to weigh in on the age of the earth, at least not in a scientific manner.
I think I might know why Answers in Genesis has such a hard time interpreting Hebrew. It seems they cannot read English very well! In their “Around the World with Ken Ham” blog, Answer in Genesis quotes one of my entries:
This is why I say that organizations like Answers in Genesis promote poor theology. There is simply no good theological reason to insist that the word yom means a 24-hour day when it is used in Genesis 1. As a result, it is simply poor theology to insist that the Bible teaches a young earth. While I agree that this is a possible meaning of Genesis 1 (indeed, it is the meaning I take from the passage) . . .
and then says:
So, it’s poor theology to insist the days of creation are ordinary days, and there is “no good theological reason” to insist this—but he takes that meaning himself anyway! Now, that means he must now be using “poor theology” himself, and he must have a “good theological reason” to believe in ordinary days, though he says there is no such “good theological reason.” I am truly perplexed.
The writer is perplexed because, of course, he doesn’t understand plain English. I say that it is poor theology to INSIST that the days of Genesis are 24-hour days. I did not say it is poor theology to believe that they are 24-hour days. It is GOOD theology to agree that a possible interpretation of yom in Genesis 1 is a 24-hour day. However, it is GOOD theology to pay attention to the experts and understand that there are many other possible interpretations of the word yom in Genesis 1. It is POOR theology to INSIST that the ONLY POSSIBLE interpretation is that of a 24-hour day.
Once again, the science from Answers in Genesis is quite good. However, when they have this much trouble reading plain modern English, I would certainly not take their word on ancient Hebrew!
Ellision research is a full-service marketing research firm in Phoenix, AZ. They research all kinds of things, but recently, I saw their report entitled, America’s Definition: What Is an Evangelical? This study polled just over 1,000 Americans (age 18 or older) and asked a very simple question:
The phrase “evangelical Christian” is used in the media a lot. In your own words, how would you define exactly what an “evangelical Christian” is? Please be as specific and complete as you can in your answer.
In my previous post, I quoted Clement of Alexandria. He said that the days of Genesis 1 were not 24-hour days. Instead, they were simply used to indicate priority. In the end, he said:
And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist. 1
I find this statement intriguing, because even though it was written in the early third century, it indicates a modern understanding of time.
As I said in my previous post, young-earth creationists (I am one, by the way) often distort church history. They try to make you think that the early church was unanimous in its interpretation of Genesis 1. For example, Answers in Genesis claims:
What did the early church believe about creation? In its first 16 centuries the church held to a young earth. Earth was several thousand years old, was created quickly in six 24-hour days, and was later submerged under a worldwide flood.1
Of course, the same article from which I just quoted immediately contradicts itself by then admitting that three very influential church fathers (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine) did not see the Genesis days as 24-hour days. In fact, they were not the only ones. There were many very influential people in the early church who did not believe that the Genesis days were 24-hour days. Of course, this view was probably a minority view, but nevertheless, it was not something held to by just a handful of early church leaders. It was a view that has existed from the earliest writings of Christianity.
Even though I am a young-earth creationist, I get weary of reading a lot of young-earth creationist literature. Why? Because such literature often promotes poor theology as well as a distorted view of church history. The young-earth organization Answers in Genesis, for example, is one of the most reliable sources of information when it comes to the scientific data that relate to the creation/evolution debate and the age of the earth. One reason they are so reliable is that they have a team of scientists reviewing their materials, which helps to ensure a reasonable level of scientific accuracy. Unfortunately, when it comes to theology and early church history, they don’t seem to have much of a clue.
I hope to write a lot on this topic, as I find it fascinating. For my first entry, I thought I would outline one of the main reasons I have a hard time believing the earth is billions of years old. Essentially, my scientific training makes it very hard for me to take the idea of a billions-of-years-old earth seriously.
Many well-meaning individuals really think that vaccines are bad for you. These people are predisposed to distrust the government (as am I), and they have been (incorrectly) taught that the government is manipulating the scientific data to make vaccines seem more effective or safer than they actually are. Of course, anyone who understands how scientific research is done and the processes by which it gets published knows that such nonsense isn’t true. However, most people are mystified by the scientific process, so these kinds of “conspiracy theories” sound believable.
In an attempt to help people from being misled about vaccines, I have decided to gather together what I consider the most relevant information related to the scientific research regarding vaccines. If you are interesting in learning the REAL FACTS regarding vaccines, you will read through what is posted here. Please understand, however, that you must have the courage to actually face the truth. If you have been deceived by the lies of the anti-vaccination movement, you might be upset by what you read. I do pray that you have the fortitude to proceed, however, as your children’s lives might depend on it. Make no mistake, the facts are crystal clear: children and adults die or are permanently injured because of the lies of the anti-vaccination movement. If you care about your children and your loved ones, you will carefully investigate this issue.
I do not like the Calvinist view of God’s omnipotence and omniscience. To believe that God knows everything because He has predestined it all requires us to dismiss many accounts in the Bible (such as God changing His mind and not destroying Ninevah) as “anthropomorphisms,” even though there is no textual evidence to do so. Not only that, a God who would arbitrarily decide who will be saved from eternal damnation and who will not be saved is capricious and not worthy of worship. Thus, I have always discounted the Calvinist view of God as unbiblical and incoherent.
Nevertheless, I have also always had a problem with the idea that God might not know something about the future. As a result, I have reluctantly conformed to the “traditional evangelical” view of God. In this view, God exists outside of time. As a result, he sees the entire history and future of the universe as if He is looking at the film of a movie. Each “frame” is an instant in the lifetime of the universe, and God sees all “frames” at the same time. Like a film editor, he can adjust specific frames in order to make the “movie” just what He wants it to be. Those are the instants in which God interacts with His creation.
Open Theism offers an alternative to both views of God. Because of that, it is worth considering. A Christian whom I respect a great deal suggested that I read The Openness of God by Richard Rice, Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger. Because I respect her as a Christian, and because I think that Clark Pinnock is one of the greatest theologians/thinkers of our time, I decided to read the book, and I am glad that I did. While I was familiar with the concept of open theism, I had never read a thorough, systematic description of it. Instead, I had just read what those who thought it was “heresy” said about it. As is typical, those who think it is heresy paint it in the worst possible light. As a result, I didn’t really understand open theism until I read this book. If you really want to know what open theism is, don’t read the propaganda from the National Association of Evangelicals or other such outlets. Instead, read this book.
This book is filled with an enormous amount of insight and truth. It contains some nonsense as well, but overall, it is well worth the read. The author’s thesis is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for ANY nation to be a “Christian” nation, as worldly governments cannot possibly work the way the Kingdom of God works. Essentially, the author says, the Kingdom of God is simple – Love the Lord, and love others more than yourself. That’s it. No compromise. The Kingdom of the World, however, is exceedingly complex, with all sorts of compromises and tradeoffs. Because of that, you simply cannot say that ANY nation operates as a “Christian” nation. In addition, because the Kingdom of the World is so complex, Christians who use their Christianity to inform their politics can end up falling along all parts of the political spectrum. On these two points, the author is absolutely correct.