Image: the Seadrill West Alpha, sitting a fjord in Norway being repaired. We used this rig to drill a series of successful wells in the North Sea
The controversy over the age of the Earth is in some ways quite analogous to a common situation in the oil industry. When a well is drilled into the rocks below, searching for a new discovery, the well is termed a “wildcat”. What happens to make a company risk millions of dollars in the hopes of finding oil? An exploration geologist will try to put all the available information together to build a prospect, an opportunity to drill a wildcat well. Such a well will test for the presence of a hydrocarbon accumulation that will produce oil or gas to make money. A presentation package is put together to convince everyone that there really will be oil in the prospect. That package can be elaborate and can include many kinds of data in great detail. It will typically include structure maps, geochemical studies, seismic examples and various depositional maps. It should account for all of the known geological data.
Eventually if it looks good, the day will come to drill a well that will provide new information that the exploration geologist just did not have when he made his interpretation. One of my former exploration managers observed, “Nothing ruins a good prospect like a well.” There are many limitations to our data, and we are always surprised to one degree or another. When we turn out to be correct in a most of the details, then we are really surprised.
The interpretation of Genesis is similar in this sense. Early Christian believers just did not have access to the types of information that we have today. They did not have the scientific data that proves that the universe is old. They also did not have access to all the older texts that we have of the Old Testament or the other Middle Eastern literature that helps to understand how to interpret the literary styles of ancient times.
Nothing is worse in the oil industry than for a geologist to go around trying to convince people to invest in a wildcat well that has already been drilled and proven to be a failure. Sometimes a geologist who has invested a lot of time and effort into developing the prospect will fall so in love with it that he or she will have a hard time accepting that another well has already tested his concept. They will try to find some reason or excuse to explain away the well. They will try to determine that it was not drilled deep enough or the map coordinates were wrong. If such explanations fail, then they must recognize that their original concept was wrong.
Often, once an unsuccessful wildcat (a dry hole) has been drilled, that data can be incorporated into the previous work and sometimes it is found that there is a new prospect to be considered. It may actually be better than the first, because the data from the first well can help make the new interpretation better. Here again, this is similar to the interpretation of creation. Christians should not try to convince the world that the new data doesn’t exist or is false. With the new data, we can put together a stronger understanding of God and His ways. It will still be wrong in some details because we are still limited. Our knowledge is never complete. However, trying to get unbelievers to invest in an understanding that has been proven wrong is something that we should not be guilty of. If the YEC model has been proven to fail, then presenting it as true, cannot be right.
In the oil exploration example, several situations might exist, such as these.
- The dry hole has not been drilled. At this point, it is uncertain what the outcome of drilling would be. In terms of the Age of the Earth, early Christians were in this situation.
- The dry hole has been drilled, but the exploration geologist is not aware of it. Many Christians are in this situation with regards to the Age of the Earth. It is certainly not essential to have a correct understanding of the Age of the Earth to be a Christian, regardless of the age. Many have never really considered this, because in their mind, it is not really important. If however, they teach a view or present it to non-believers, the onus is on them to be as correct as they can.
- The dry hole has been drilled and the exploration geologist is aware of it. He really needs to incorporate this data. If he has the data and simply chooses to ignore it, hide it, or to misrepresent it, this is clearly unethical. YEC are in this position. If the geologist considers it possible that the dry hole really didn’t condemn his prospect, he still ethically be very careful to make sure that the investors are well aware of the well and its possible implications. The Christian must do no less.
I want to draw on the writings of early Christian theologian, Augustine of Hippo. The quote is substantial because I don’t want to misrepresent his context.
18. 37. In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.
19. 38. Let us suppose that in explaining the words, “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and light was made,” (Gn 1, 3), one man thinks that it was material light that was made, and another that it was spiritual. As to the actual existence of “spiritual light” in a spiritual creature, our faith leaves no doubt; as to the existence of material light, celestial or supercelestial, even existing before the heavens, a light which could have been followed by night, there will be nothing in such a supposition contrary to the faith until un-erring truth gives the lie to it. And if that should happen, this teaching was never in Holy Scripture but was an opinion proposed by man in his ignorance. On the other hand, if reason should prove that this opinion is unquestionably true, it will still be uncertain whether this sense was intended by the sacred writer when he used the words quoted above, or whether he meant something else no less true. And if the general drift of the passage shows that the sacred writer did not intend this teaching, the other, which he did intend, will not thereby be false; indeed, it will be true and more worth knowing. On the other hand, if the tenor of the words of Scripture does not militate against our taking this teaching as the mind of the writer, we shall still have to enquire whether he could not have meant something else besides. And if we find that he could have meant something else also, it will not be clear which of the two meanings he intended. And there is no difficulty if he is thought to have wished both interpretations if both are supported by clear indications in the context.
19. 39. Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.” (1 Tm 1, 7)
Emphasis added) taken from: https://inters.org/augustine-interpretating-sacred-scripture
Augustine did not have available the data that we have regarding the antiquity of Earth, but his principles tell us how he might have reacted. He did not believe that the Earth was billions of years old, but this suggests that given the data, he would have looked carefully to see if the Bible can be faithfully interpreted in ways that would allow for this possibility. If he considered the Age of the Earth to be reasonably established, he certainly would not have presented the Earth as young.
Imagine that a geologist is presenting his prospect before various potential investors or managers within his company, and you know that a dry hole has been drilled on his prospect. What should you do? One option is to keep the information to yourself. Afterall, it is his prospect. Hardly ethical or ultimately kind though. Another option would be to loudly make fun of the geologist, perhaps making yourself look good for management. You might berate him as a poor geologist. Again, this would not be kind or professional, though the equivalent happens often. Another option would be to politely but clearly make sure the information is presented. It might be done privately in some cases, but might be necessary to state it publicly in other cases, but should be done without personal attack. If the presenting geologist is wise, he will be grateful for the information. No one benefits from drilling a dry hole. As an old geologist explained to me, the only thing we get from a dry hole is information. We should learn from it to avoid mistakes in the future.
The Christian with the information that one view of creation is false is in the same position. What should he or she do with that information. Holding the information to themselves is not right, though it may not be comfortable to share it. They can share the information in rude hurtful ways. As Christians, we are called to always act in love, particularly to our brothers and sisters in Christ. We should never be motivated by the desire to make other Christians look bad. Part of the motivation for making sure that the Christians have the right information is to be sure that non-Christians do not reject Jesus because Christian credibility is destroyed by presenting a false view of nature. Augustine recognized this danger in his day. Claiming that the old age view of the universe is motivated by some sort of atheistic conspiracy or Satanic lie is a poor argument and hurts the credibility of all Christians.
The scientific view of the age of the Earth and the YEC views are so sharply different that it is impossible that both are true. The consensus views are based on many independent lines of evidence and seem incredibly solid, at least to demonstrate that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old.
I have provided elsewhere both scientific evidence that contradicts YEC models: A Baker’s Dozen Scientific Issues Pointing to an Old Earth
I have also provided evidence from the Bible that and old earth interpretation is at least possible and may be preferred here: A Baker’s Dozen Indicators from the Bible for an Old Earth
We seek both grace and truth because that is what Jesus brings. (John 1:17) They will know we are Christians by our love.
Recent Comments