CIM Briefing Papers
CIM Outline #44
THE AGE OF THE EARTH
I. The Problem
A. There seems to be indisputable evidence from science
that the earth is billions of years old (5 billion
according to current consensus). A normal
interpretation of the Biblical data seems to imply, on
the other hand, that the creation of the earth (and
Man) was relatively recent.
B. In the age-old debate between the Bible and science,
the issue of the age of the earth is perhaps the most
troubling to Christians who wish to be intellectually
honest to both the scientific data and God's revelation
in His Word.
C. This conflict not only sets many Christians against the
scientific community, it also has become an intense
intramural debate between Christians who hold to an old
earth and those who do not. It is this debate which is
the focus of this outline.
D. It is important to note that this conflict did not
really come to the fore until the advent of
evolutionary theory, which as a process is quite slow
and requires enormous amounts of time; and, the
subsequent discovery of data that indicated that the
earth was ancient.
E. The disagreement between the two sides is a factor of
about one million!
II. Important Presuppositions
With regards to the age of the earth debate, we believe the
following presuppositions (assumptions) are non-negotiable
for the Christian World-and-life view.
A. The Inerrancy of Scripture
No, the Bible is not a textbook of science. However,
when it refers to the things which can be measured and
checked by the scientific method it should stand as
accurate. This assumption rejects the view that the
Bible is only accurate and authoritative when it speaks
about spiritual matters. This view leads to unbridled
subjectivism since the interpreter would then become
the ultimate authority in discerning what is
"spiritual".
B. Creation Ex Nihlo
This assumption rejects the "amoeba to man" theory in
the light of the clear teaching that the "kinds" of
living things were created fiat with apparent age.
Example: Adam as a full-grown male. Hence the creation
will naturally appear older than it is.
C. The Unity of Truth
Contradictions between the natural world and Scripture
are only apparent. Ultimately, when both are properly
interpreted they will be in harmony. This assumption
rests on the fact that God is the author of both.
D. The Primacy of Scripture
The Bible is the primary arbitrator of truth and
meaning. When an interpretation of a passage of
Scripture is so clear in that it agrees with that of
the great exegetes throughout church history, and after
all grammatical and lexical resources are exhausted to
the point that it can yield no other interpretation,
yet still stands in contradiction to the consensus of
science, then science must yield.
III. The Young Earth Position
A. Stated: This view holds that the earth is thousands
as opposed to millions or billions of years old. God
created the earth and its features, flora and fauna,
by calling them into existence in six consecutive 24
hour days. The creation, therefore, had the
appearance of some (a key word) age at the moment it
was called into existence. The great sedimentary
features of the earth's lithosphere and the fossil
evidence are largely the result of the universal
Flood of Noah. An ice age immediately followed the
Flood as well as stone age conditions for humankind.
B. The Evidence for a Young Earth
1. Biblical
a. The Genealogy of Gen. 5 may have gaps
(missing names), however, there is no
evidence from the text of gaps in the
chronology. If the purpose is only to show
line of descent (as old-earthers say) then
why include the date markers? Assuming
there are no breaks in the chronology,
there are 1656 years between the creation
of Adam and the Flood.
b. There is almost unanimous agreement that
Abraham dates to about 2000 B.C. (Middle
Bronze Age according to archaeologists)
The chronology of Gen. 11:10-32 (Shem to
Abraham) may also have missing names. Only
10 names are mentioned possibly for
symmetrical reasons. There are 222 years
between the Flood and Terah when the
figures are added. This genealogy more
than likely has some chronological gaps.
However, this does not mean that many
generations are missing, or that thousands
of years may be inserted in the gaps to
accommodate modern archaeology which does
so on the basis of radiometric dating and
speculation. There seems to be good
historical evidence for putting the Flood
at about 3000 B.C. (at the earliest). See
W. Hallo's article: "Antediluvian Cities"
in Journal of Cuneiform Studies 23/3:61-
62. For more evidence for this date for
the Flood see "The Date of Noah's Flood" by
David Livingston in Archaeology and
Biblical Research 6/1/93, pp.13-17.
c. The preponderance of linguistic evidence is
that the "days" of Genesis 1 should be
interpreted as 24 hour solar days. There
is no evidence for large gaps to
accommodate the geological timetable, nor
is there a need to. (See briefing paper
#5)
d. Other Scriptural passages seem to indicate
that creation was sudden (an event rather
than a process!). See for example Psalm
33, verse 10 in particular. Therefore,
long ages seem superfluous.
2. Scientific
a. The Decay of the Earth's magnetic field
The earth is like a giant magnet with a
magnetic field which is decaying at a known
rate. When projected backward to the point
where the magnetic field would be too
strong for life, we find that this only
projects back about 10,000 years. Old
earthers and evolutionists respond that the
field declines but is periodically
regenerated. Currently, there is no
evidence for this, and it would seem to be
in violation of the second law of
thermodynamics. See The Earth's Magnetic
Field, by R.T. Merrill and M.W. McElhinney.
Pp. 101-106; and for additional references
to scientific papers see the forthcoming
book The Age of the Earth by John Morris
(Master Books, 1994).
b. Comets
According to evolutionary theory, comets
are supposed to be the same age as the
solar system (five billion years).
However, from observed data they are
decaying much to fast. Their rate of decay
would indicate a young solar system. See
F.L. Whipple's article: "Background of
Modern Comet Theory" in Nature 263(Sept.
1975), P. 15.
c. Sediments
Current geological theory says the ocean
floors are 200 million years old, but at
the present rate of accumulation there
should be many kilometers of sediments.
The fact that they are only about 800 feet
thick argues for a young earth.
d. Fossils out of Sequence
According to the evolutionary time-scale
pine trees appeared about 350 million years
ago. However, pine pollen has been found
in rocks that evolutionists date at 1.5
billion years! This evidence has been
independently verified and casts doubt on
the geological timetable. See G.F. Howe's
article: "Creation Research Society studies
on precambrian pollen" in Creation Research
Society Quarterly, 24 (Mar. 1988)173-182.
e. Polystrate Fossils
These are fossils of tree trunks that
penetrate several layers of sediment which
according to accepted geological literature
were deposited slowly over long periods of
time. However, the tree trunks would have
decayed unless the sedimentation had
occurred rapidly.
f. Amount of Helium in the Atmosphere
All naturally-occurring radioactive
elements give off helium as they decay. If
the decay has taken place over billions of
years there should be vast amounts of
helium in the atmosphere. The actual
amount indicates that the earth could not
be more than 50,000 years old.
g. History Appears Suddenly about 2900 B.C.
Written history begins suddenly about 5000
years ago. Any evidence beyond these dates
is based on speculation or radiometric
dating. It should be obvious a tribe often
exists which may be using only stone age
tools contemporaneously with an advanced
civilization (even today!). That
civilization seems to have suddenly
appeared full-blown is still a great enigma
to archaeologists. The pyramids of Egypt
were not built by primitive people! Two
Russian scientists writing in Scientific
American concluded from a computer study of
the evolution of language, that the
original Indo-European language began
somewhere in Eastern Turkey (ancient
Ararat) around 6000 years ago! See the
March 1990 issue.
h. No stone Age Skeletons
If the stone Age lasted for over 100,000
years as evolutionists assert the world's
population of these primitive peoples over
this period of time should yield billions
of stone age skeletons since they were
known to bury their dead. However, few are
found. See E.S. Deevey, "The Human
Population," Scientific American 203
(Sept.1960) 194-204.
i. Radiohalos
These are microscopic rings of color formed
in radio-active rock crystals. They are
evidence of radio-active decay. According
to this evidence, radio halos of Polonium-
210 found in Colorado Jurassic, Triassic,
and Eocene formations were formed within
months of each other rather than hundreds
of million years. See Creation's Tiny
Mystery by Robert Gentry (1986).
j. There is much more evidence that could be
listed here based on various calculations
depending on known uniform rates. For
example, if the earth is of great age there
should be much more salt in the ocean, much
greater population, much larger deltas,
etc. For a list of over 100 of these
calculations, see pp.18ff. in The
Illustrated Origins Answer Book, by Paul
Taylor.
IV. The Old Earth Position
A. Stated: The earth, according to scientific evidence is at
least 5 billion years old. The universe is as old as 20
billion years.
B. Varieties of the old earth position:
1. The naturalistic evolutionists (the scientific
establishment). This group denies any outside agent of
creation, only the necessity of time (lots of it) and
chance.
2. Theistic evolutionists, those who believe God chose the
process of evolution to work His plan. This group
generally holds that the early chapters of Genesis are
largely figurative, and that only the "spiritual" content
of the Bible is inspired.
3. Old-earth Creationists: This view denies any macro-
evolution yet believes the the scientific evidence for an
old earth and cosmos is undeniable. Their goal is
therefore to seek ways to harmonize this evidence with the
Biblical account of Creation. Some attempts of
accommodation are as follows:
a. Gap Theory. Great gaps of time are inserted between
verses 1 and 2 of Gen. Chapter One. This view is
sometimes called the re-creation theory in that it
posits another creation that was destroyed. The
geological ages and fossils of extinct species (e.g.,
dinosaurs) are the only evidence of this age before
Adam. This view was popularized by the notes in the
old Scofield Bible and is no longer popular. Others
put the gap between the days of creation (Progressive
Creationism). Gaps of time are also postulated in
the genealogies of Gen. 5 and 11.
c. Day-Age Theory. This view interprets the Hebrew word
(yom) "day" as an age. Some holding this view in the
past have tried to see parallels between the "days"
of creation and the geological ages. A problem with
this view is seeing creation ex nihlo as a long
drawn-out process. The theistic evolutionist would
not have this problem.
d. The Days of Revelation View. It sees the days of
creation as days in which the revelation was
received. In otherwords, the revelation of creation
came over a 6 day period. On the 7th day the
revelation ceased. This view is currently gaining in
popularity.
e. The Literary View. Believes the form of the
literature of Genesis is such that it cannot be taken
as strictly historical or chronological in nature
(i.e. the days are not necessarily in chronological
order. The sun was obviously created before the
earth, etc.). Rather, the purpose of Genesis One was
theological. Moses wrote it this way as a polemic to
demolish the pagan ideas of creation held by the
people of Canaan. This view is also gaining in
popularity. See "Climbing out of the Swamp." by
Clark H. Pinnock, Interpretation, April, 1989.
Note: The above views are often held in combination. For example,
almost all would see gaps in the genealogies of Gen. 5 and 11, and
most would agree that Genesis One should not be read in a strictly
literal manner. Old earthers generally denigrate the effects of
the Noahic Flood. Most hold to a deluge of only local or regional
effect.
C. The Evidence for an old earth
1. Astronomical Evidence:
Almost without exception OE's hold to the Big Bang Theory
for the beginning of the universe. They assume the
evidence for this model is overwhelming. If it is true,
then all celestial objects are moving away at a rapid rate
from the center of this big blast. Hence the universe is
expanding outward. This rapid expansion is known from the
Doppler Effect of light (Red Shift). Some galaxies are
known to be billions of light-years from the earth. If
light from these distant bodies is now reaching earth it
must have taken it that long (billions of years) to get
here.
2. Radiometric Dating: It is based on the decay of elements
(and isotopes of elements), all of which decay at
different known speeds. For example, the isotope, carbon
14 decays to carbon 12 at a known rate. When an organism
has died no more carbon 14 is ingested. The ratio of C14
to C12 is measured and age is calculated. Other
radiometric methods are used for inorganic material such
as rocks. Using radiometric dating, some igneous rocks
have been dated at 3.5 billion years. Moon rocks have
been dated at 4.5 billion years.
3. Geological Evidence-the Sedimentation Process: There
exists in eastern U.S. layers of sedimentary rock that are
40,000 feet thick. According to the known processes
whereby such sediments are laid down, vast amounts of time
are necessary. Other examples given are huge sandstone
deposits in the American Southwest and coral reefs in
tropical oceans.
4. The Biblical Evidence. OE's simply argue that Bible does
not give specific times of events before Abraham. II
Peter 3:8 is often quoted to support the Bible's use of
indefinite periods of time. "But do not forget this one
thing, dear friends: with the Lord a day is like a
thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."
V. Observations and Concerns
A. About the Young Earth View (YEV)
1. The YEV is commendable in the way it approaches the Biblical
text. The Bible is assumed to be both inerrant and the
primary source of meaning. Many of its proponents are
skilled in the original languages of the text. An added
note of interest is that non-christians, or non-evangelical
exegetes who are also skilled in the languages of the Bible,
acknowledge that the plain meaning of the text yields a
creation of 6 days duration.
2. However, in their zeal to prove the Bible and the claims of
a young earth, YE's often tout scientific evidence to
support claims which in many cases lacks either credibility
or sufficient verification. A recent example is the view
that the speed of light is slowing down. If true, all
radiometric methods of dating (which show an old earth)
would be skewed. Currently, the evidence seems to be
strongly in favor of the constancy of the speed of light.
For further discussion see: Perry G. Phillips. "A History
and Analysis of the 15.7 Light Year Universe." Journal of
the American Scientific Affiliation. Mar. 1988.
3. YE's need to bring forth a much better effort in rebutting
the geological evidence given for an old earth. The recent
work of Dr. Steve Austin of the Institute for Creation
Research is commendable in this regard. His work on the
rapid formation of the Grand Canyon and the geological
dynamism of the recent Mt St. Helens catastrophe are two
examples.
B. About the Old Earth View (OEV)
1. Those who hold the OEV, because they are so convinced of the
evidence, often are guilty of strained exegesis when
interpreting the opening passages of Genesis. For a classic
case of the scientific tail wagging the theological dog see
the work of Hugh Ross, and that of Newman and Eckelmann.
2. OE's minimalize the effects of the Noahic Flood. It would
certainly seem that if such a Flood were a universal
catastrophe of a year's duration, there would be some
geological markers. OE's admit to none. Indeed many OE's
hold to only a local inundation. To deny the universal
character of the Noahic Flood again seems to go against the
plain meaning of the text which continually uses universals
to describe the Deluge.
3. OE's accept the Big Bang model as a proven model. The media
also portrays it as proven, however, it has been under
considerable attack from scientists within the discipline of
Astronomy. See Marvin L. Lubenow. Bones of Contention.
Chapter 18, "Is the Big Bang a Big Bust." The old earth-
cosmos is totally dependent on the Big Bang hypothesis being
true.
4. It seems awkward to hold the twin concepts of an ancient
earth and sudden creation in tandem. Aside from the
theistic evolutionary view (which utilizes the time) the
great ages seems to be pointless.
5. OE's are guilty of not thoroughly examining many of the
presuppositions of some of their scientific conclusions.
Many are at variance with Christian presuppositions, and
may, if taken to their logical conclusions, have grave
theological ramifications (e.g. death occurring before the
Fall).
6. OE's have not adequately refuted much of the scientific
evidence for a young earth listed earlier.
VI. Summary
Taken at face value, the Biblical evidence seems to clearly teach a
young earth, i.e., the universe was created in place with some
inherent age. A growing amount of scientific evidence seems to be
supportive of this position, but it is not an open and shut case.
On the otherhand, there is some evidence that seems to indicate that
the earth might be very old, e.g., the geological evidence given
above. However, OE's, in our opinion, tend to down-play the
intensity that a universal Flood may have had. YE's believe these
massive layers of sedimentation could have been deposited in such a
catastrophe.
If it is the clear teaching of Scripture that the earth is young
(thousands of years old), and that Creation was an event rather than
a process, then science will ultimately yield its secret and be
found in harmony with God's written Word. For the Christian,
science is a tool to be used, not a basis (foundation) for
constructing a world view. Ultimate truth can never be found
starting from a finite (man) perspective.
VII. For Further Reading
A. The Young Earth View
Ackerman, Paul. It's a Young World After All.
Howe, Frederic E. "The Age of the Earth: An Appraisal of
Some Current Evangelical Positions." This
article is an excellent survey of the problem
and is found in two parts in Bibliotheca
Sacra. Jan-Mar. 1985, and Apr-Jun. 1985.
Lubenow, Marvin L. Bones of Contention. See Chapter 18-20,
including Appendix.
Morris, Henry M. and Morris John D. Science, Scripture, and
the Age of the Earth.
Morris, John D. The Age of the Earth.
Whitcomb, John C. The Early Earth.
Youngblood, Ronald. ed. The Genesis Debate. See Chapter 3.
B. The Old Earth View
Van Till, Howard J., Young, Davis A., and Menninga,
Clarence. Science Held Hostage
Newman, Robert C., and Eckelmann, Herman J. Genesis One and
the Origin of the Earth.
Ross, Hugh. Creation and Time.
Ross, Hugh. Genesis One: A Scientific Perspective.
Ross, Hugh. The Creator and the Cosmos.
Young, Davis A. Creation and the Flood.
Young, Davis A. Christianity and the Age of the Earth.
 |
RAPID RESPONSE REPORT |
| BRIEFING PAPERS |
| BIBLIOGRAPHIES |
| MOVIE & BOOK REVIEWS |
| TECHNICAL PAPERS | | ARARAT REPORTS |
| CONTACT US |
| OUR STAFF |
| CIM HOME |
Do you want a printer friendly version of this paper?
Select your format below
