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. Christian Information Ministries is a non-profit ministry and is dependent on gifts from God's people in order to operate. If you receive a benefit from our materials would you consider giving a tax-deductible gift to CIM. We suggest $25. a year minimum. Send to: Christian Information Ministries 2050 N. Collins Blvd. #100 Richardson, TX 75080