Christians differ on many things such as how and when to baptize, when we should expect the Jesus’ return and how churches should be organized. Although the Holy Spirit does guide towards truth, it is clear that His work will not be complete on this side of heaven. Christians disagree about the age of the earth and the scientific evidence as well.
I would suggest that both scripture and nature need to be individually studied and examined to see what they tell us. Ultimately, they need to be integrated and an interpretation that is faithful to both is more likely to be true. Views on the age and history of the earth can in general be split into two camps. One camp develops its view using the data from nature. It integrates data from physics, geology, astronomy, biology, etc. Christians in this camp believe that the Bible does not take a position on these questions and that scientific investigation is the proper way to approach the problem. These Christians believe that the scientific data does not conflict with the Bible and many believe it actually supports the Christian view of God.
The second group believe that the scientific data must be interpreted to fit within their interpretation of the scriptures. Most consider the Bible to teach that creation occurred over 6 literal days a few thousand years ago. This group, commonly referred to as Young Earth Creationists (YEC), generally believe that creation took place between 6000 to 12,000 years ago. They further believe that the flood recorded in Genesis covered the entire earth and this flood was responsible for most of the rocks that we find around the world. This view, known as Flood Geology (FG) in essence divide the history recorded in rocks (the rock record) largely into a few units depending on whether it was from creation week, before the flood, during the flood or after the flood. There are nuances on this view, such as there is a group who call themselves the Young Biosphere Creationists (YBC). They believe that the universe and earth were created long ago, but life was created recently and FG explains most of the rock record. In terms of earth’s geology, this is the same as the YEC view.
In coming posts, I will look at evidences from several sciences, but as a geologist, I am most comfortable with that piece and will use more of that. Geology had the distinction of being the first science where the discoveries ran against the accepted age of the earth. The geologic evidence comes from many areas and is of many types. You can think about which explanation is best and what the confidence in each really is.
Does the age matter? Truth matters. One particular resource that geology provides for all of science on earth is a timeline, a means to tell what order ancient events took place in and what was happening at the same time in other places. This timeline should help to understand the history of how God has worked in our world. When prosecuting attorneys bring a defendant to trial for murder, one of the basic parts of their case is a timeline for the crime. It shows when the crime was committed and demonstrates that the accused had opportunity to commit the crime. If God is responsible for the creation of the world and man, the geologic timeline of earth’s history cannot help but affect the way we understand God’s activity. It should be consistent with a creator’s motives and methods.
I want to be clear. While posts in this section will tend to focus on the scientific data, I am not suggesting that the Bible should be interpreted by forcing it into the scientific model that we develop. Both the Bible and nature need to be interpreted alone and then brought together. When an area is found apparently in conflict, then that flags an area to be examined closely. If there are multiple options on how to interpret either of them, the scripture or science may suggest which is viable. We may not find a final answer. In both nature and the Bible, there are areas where “now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face” (I Corinthians 13;12), suggesting that more full answers will come in heaven, though many of the questions will probably seem unimportant then.
If we are comparing two scenarios, and they are really similar, it can be really difficult. For instance, if we trying to tell which is closer between two things on the other side of a football field it might be difficult because they are pretty close to the same distance away. If one is on the other side of the football field, but one is on another continent, it wouldn’t be so difficult. The greater the distance between the two objects the easier it is. Here we have two scenarios for how old the earth is and what were the key processes that shaped it. They are very different and that is good. The fact that they are very different makes it easier to tell which is more right. The YEC interpretation tells us that the earth is 6-10,000 years old. Conventional scientific interpretation tells us that it is 4,590,000,000 years old. That is different enough that it should be very possible to tell which is more correct. The proposed models of earth’s history are very different as well. “Flood geology” proposes that the rock record is best explained dominantly by deposits from Noah’s flood with little time after it. The vast majority of geologists today interpret the rock record to have formed over the 4.59 billion years with a complex history of sedimentation, rock deformation, igneous activity that reflects a great deal of time. Once again, these are radically different proposals and that is good. It should be possible to be very confident which model is more correct.
Recent Comments