I don’t think I’ve mentioned this recently, but I’m an astronomy buff. In my “drive time” each day for the last couple of weeks I’ve been listening to a lecture series on Astronomy from a prof. at Ohio State University. It’s very, very good (and free, thank you iTunes!). One of the big issues with astronomy is, of course, the age of the universe, and along with it, the age of the earth.
I am a fully committed evangelical Christian. I have given my life to love and serve Jesus Christ. I believe in the inspiration and inerrency of the Bible. However, I would not necessarily classify myself as a “young earth creationist.” (That position holds the earth to be about 6,000 years old.) On the other hand, I don’t necessarily consider myself an “old earth creationist” either. (That position would agree with most modern scientists who believe the world/universe to be billions of years old.) In fact, to be honest, I’m not really sure where I stand on this issue, and it’s starting to really bother me.
To help me in this thinking process, I am working my way through a couple of books: Three Views on Creation and Evolution (from the “Counterpoints” series published by Zondervan) and The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. If you have a particular resource that has been helpful to you, I’d love to hear about it.
I confess that I am pretty much a novice when it comes to these kinds of issues, which is why I’m trying to learn a few things. I do have a few convictions, though:
- Being a committed Christian doesn’t mean you have to be a young earth creationist. It is not an indication of one’s commitment to Christ.
- I will gladly converse with people who disagree with me on any kind of issue as long as there is mutual respect. When people resort to name-calling and accusations, that’s when I stop listening.
- We must be intellectually honest with established scientific knowledge. (Of course, what’s “fact” and what isn’t is a matter of great dispute.)
I know a lot of conservative Christians — some of them much smarter than myself — subscribe to a “young earth” theory. Others as equally smart have come down on a different position. Hopefully as I do some reading of my own I will come to some clearer conclusions.
I’m with you Kent. I recently read a book “Science of God” by Gerald Schroeder who gives a good argument how the earth can be both 6,000 years old and 5 Billion years old at the same time using the Theory of Relativity. It’s pretty complicated, but easy to grasp when you’re reading the book.
His basic premise is that the faster time goes, the faster life goes. The slower time goes, the slower life goes. And the speed of time is based on the speed of matter. So matter was expanding from the center of the universe speedily and has since lost momentum and slowed down, our time is a lot slower than time in the beginning. Millions of years worth of life could come and go in a 24 hour period.
I don’t do the argument justice. But I highly recommend the book for thought. Definitely some other weird views in it, but its a good read.
That’s a really intriguing argument that makes sense. Thanks for the recommendation, I’ll check it out.
I just put a long comment on a post on your blog but I don’t think it published. I’m too tired to re-do it!
Just ordered the book on half.com – cheap.
Hi, I am an Evangelical Christian in the UK, and I believe in the Divine Inspiration of the Scriptures. Last Sunday in our church all the readings touched on Creation and I have been thinking a good deal about it for many years (I am a Physicist/Mathemetician by training.)
I feel more and more exasperated when I hear Christians even suggesting that Gen 1-3 is to be taken literally. It seems to me that a cursory glance at those chapters shouts aloud that this is parable/poetry/allegory – call it what you will, BUT NOT PROSAIC PROSE.
First glance reveals a serpent that talks, a God that walks and talks in a garden, the whole moral responsibility of mankind reduced to choosing between two different sorts of fruit, a cherubim with a flashing sword guarding those trees when the wrong choice is made (has NASA spotted the garden of eden and this fellow with his flashing sword – has it disappeared – was it washed away with the flood – even to ask such questions shows to me how barmy it is when people take these wonderful biblical spiritually inspired images and turn them into something literal – they make us Bible believing Christians look like incredulous oddballs – and I find that just puts a great gulf between us and any seeking person with common sense, let alone a genuine scientist who just wants to find out the truth about things)
But deeper study of Genesis 1 shows amazing literary craftsmanship. The parallels of the two sets of 3 days. The seventh day that has no morning or evening and so is not a 24 hour day anyway. The fact that the total number of Hebrew words for day 1-4 is 207 and for day 5-6 is 206. The two tablets of Gen 1 and Gen 2 which together form complementary pictures if the passage is literary but two conflicting accounts if it is taken literally.
Then finally we know that when Genesis was first around there were also other creation accounts around too – the Attrahasis epic that may go back to 2000BC and the Epic of Gilgamesh from 7th century BC in the time of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal being the best known. So when God inspired by his Spirit Moses to compile a true understanding of his creative power he was at the same time contradicting these pagan ideas with their many gods etc. These epics show an optimistic view that says things started bad and got better. Genesis says is started perfect and was irreversibly contaminated by the disobedience of mankind. Well I could go on – its all there in any good book on the background of Genesis.
Finally I have to ask could God have revealed these mysteries in any other than a parabolic way. It is for people of all ages and cultures and intelligence. Allegory is perfect for that. If God had dictated a literal description of creation it would have perished as utterly unintelligable and meaningless.
If we can see that Genesis is showing us profound things through poetry then we can argue about the age of the earth and the effectiveness of evolution as a scientific theory IN THEIR OWN RIGHT. Most scientists I have met have been honest, hardworking passionate people who want to find out the truth about things. They do not start with a religious axe to grind. Many of them listen to the astonishing credulity of so many Christians and never give Jesus another thought.
I’m knocking on now past 70 and just learned that I have got cancer. I long to see revival break out and the Holy Spirit sweep through our world and exalt Jesus as King and Lord. I feel sometimes as though Satan has cast a spell over great tracts of the Christian Church to make so many feel that literal is loyal. Does the parable of the Good Samaritan depend on Jerusalem/Jericho/Pharisee etc. Is the truth it teaches not true if such an event did not take place. Is its ‘truth’ information about prejudices in the time of Jesus or ‘who is my neighbour’
I’d better stop and I’m not sure how – so God bless you and lead you into the fullness of the stature of Christ.
I am a young earth creationist all though I prefer to label myself a follower of Jesus who is the Christ, Christian for short.
I do not think that believing in an old earth is damnable, but I do think the teaching of an old earth is a hindrance to the teaching of the Bible. Ken Ham at answers in genesis had a great seminar he gave on this subject, it is found on itunes or you can email me and I can send it to you.
I think a lot of what causes this to be such a debate is that the mainstream secular culture has made it a debate between religion and science, this is misleading. Christians respect and trust science. The debate is between the two interpretations of the evidence found and that debate will not be resolved until Jesus comes again and clears it up.
[...] http://sacredstones.net/2009/02/17/are-you-a-young-or-old-earth-creationist-or-neither/ [...]
Neil, thanks for taking the time to make some comments about my post. I’m not sure how you stumbled across my blog, but hopefully at the very least it will allow some dialogue with a fellow believer “across the pond” — and dialogue, rather than argument, is really lacking in the body of Christ these days.
You bring up some really good points, and in fact I recall in my seminary days learning about many of the items you mentioned: the literary structure of Gen. 1-2, the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc. Most Christians don’t realize that there were other creation stories floating around in the ancient world. This doesn’t deflate the truth of Gen. 1-2, but rather it helps us look at the Bible in a literary context, which is a vital approach to understanding the Bible.
I am very sorry to hear about your diagnosis of cancer, and I pray for a successful treatment and recovery.
Mcoville – Thanks for sharing your perspective. I respect the work of Ken Ham – he certainly knows more than most about issues related to creation, evolution, age of the earth, etc. You are right on in your assessment science vs. religion. There is a general assumption that Christians don’t tolerate science and in fact see it as a detriment to faith. However, I see all good science as “God’s science.” If something is established fact, it’s a fact and we have to deal with it. The problem, however, is that the is often a lot of disagreement about what are facts and what are interpretations.
Nikomas, I got the book “The Science of God” last week and am really enjoying it. I had put it on my amazon wish list a long time ago and forgot about it. Thanks for the recommendation.
This is a very thought provoking post. I’ll confess up front that I believe the account of creation in Genesis is literal, historical, and a divine revelation. I believe the earth is on the order of 6000 years old. I also believe in science. I’m not talking about philosophy disguised as science. I’m talking about the study of cause-effect relationships to verify or falsify theories. First of all, neither biblical creation nor evolution (cosmic or biological) can be tested scientifically, so both actually fall outside the realm of pure science. Both are beliefs. One purports to be divinely revealed. The other is purely a human invention. That said…
A book I would highly recommend on the subject of astronomy and origins is Starlight and Time by Dr. Russell Humphreys. The theory he puts forward is presented in a way us normal people can easily grasp. He has presented a number of very technical papers since that book was released, but the central idea is essentially good. He explores problems with a number of creationist theories as well as the most popular evolutionist theories (big bang, multiverse, etc).
You present three convictions. Regarding #1, while it is true that one need not have a conviction one way or the other to be saved by the blood of our Lord, it seems to me anyone who faces the question honestly must make a choice between God’s revalation and man’s invention. There are numerous sound theological reasons to reject “old earth” compromise. I will tell you as a matter of personal testimony that after years of research on my own I’ve come to the conclusion that science – that is to say the strict application of scientific method to various models – has led me to believe science soundly supports the plain literal reading of Genesis. Regarding #2, I feel exactly the same way. I’ve studied and written quite a bit on the subject, but I’m not interested in conversing with flamers from either end of the spectrum. Regarding #3 I also fully agree.
I’m currently in the process of posting an extensive series on the subject of science and creation at http://blogs.bible.org/blog/16486 if you’re interested.