Evolution/ Age of the Earth: Various Perspectives

[Josh]

Originally posted 3/1/06:

Christians have taken several different perspectives on the subject of evolution over the past 150 years, everywhere from young-earth creationism, to old-earth progressive creationism, to theistic evolution and a multitude of shades in between. I've personally ranged the full gamut. In the process I've come to appreciate the importance of intellectual honesty and humility. I have also come to the strong conviction that none of these positions in a litmus test for true Christianity.

I believe that debate over evolution is a secondary issue of apologetics, and that some ways of explaining evolutionary theory need not be considered contradictory to Christian faith. That said, I do have some intellectual reservations about evolutionary theory and do resonate most strongly with old-earth progressive creationism and intelligent design. I honestly think the next several years will help clear up a lot of really beneficial scientific dialogue currently on the table, and in humility, expect that many issues which are currently under the fog of debate will sort themselves out more definitely one way or the other. And ultimately, we need not fear- all truth is God's truth anyway.

That said, I think the arguments for the existence of an intelligent designer and ultimate cause of the universe are substantial (and much clearer) considering recent advances in various scientific discplines. That the universe had a fixed beginning, that life is precisely fine-tuned, that we have no naturalistic way to describe how life first appeared on our planet and continued to exist and flourish-- these are all first-rate apologetic arguments in my book (for more on this, check out some of the other threads here)

I'm curious what others think about evolution and the relationship between science and faith, or what questions and comments you all have. I want to encourage healthy dialogue on the subject, respectful of different points of view, focused on what is true, which really is a hallmark of our group.

[sonlyte]

As far as young earth creationism and its explanation of geology / the fossil record / many other mysteries, the theory that seems to have the most effective reasoning would be the hydroplate theory. The whole book can be found online, and also many criticisms of said book. Most criticisms result from inadequate attention to the details about which the author carefully articulates. However, geology / radioactive dating along with astronomical evidence seems to be a formidible case for a the 13.something billion year age. After reading criticisms from creationists, and rebuttals from geologists, I find the geologists having significantly better arguments overall. What I have really enjoyed is some of the unexpected findings from the super deep kola bore hole - cracks and water in the granite at a depth which would have been thought to be impossible, temperatures increasing greatly beyond what was expected. Those findings were great because they confronted scienctists with a reality that was different than all calculations to the contrary. This should cast doubt on other scientific predictions which are made about subjects not directly observable. However, scientists tend to have significantly less bias overall than young earth creationists, and I find myself in that camp a lot more often. I have actually recently found myself believing in God directed evolution on macro scales, that is quick and short changes brought about by God's guidance and power. And I have also finally come to a point where I have realized, IF homo sapiens were formed from an earlier species, the truth of our beginnings in the dust are still true. In a way, the evolutionary account greatly magnifies God's work in that the mass of the universe, speed of expansion, placement in the galaxy, distance from the sun, creation of life and long slow and perfect development of his image are all things which God would have put significantly more time and energy into making than in the contrasting young earth thory. Hopefully this whole message makes sense since I know I piled a lot into it.

[Josh]

Hopefully this whole message makes sense since I know I piled a lot into it.

It totally makes sense and resonates closely to my own journey as well.

No doubt anyone who comes on here will share some perspectives and disagree on others, but that's the beauty of coming together to think together on these matters.

In my own investigations, I too looked at both sides of the "dating debates" and came away much more convinced by the general scientific consensus on the age of the earth and universe.

I grew up with a young earth perspective, but one of my big difficulties with that perspective was that I felt most of the case they were trying to make was simply attempting to cast doubt or shoot holes in other scientist's theories, not producing a testable (or falsifiable) hypothesis of their own.

Regarding evolution, I tend to concede that there is evidence of common ancestry, and I agree with your sentiment that if it occurred, it happened suddenly (relatively with the time frames we're looking at) and not primarily as a result of random processes, but most likely as the result of God's direct creative involvement. Evolutionary theory still has yet to provide a successful, testable (or even theoretically viable) mechanism for naturalistic change from one species to another, so there's no need to see God's creative process as wholly mechanistic.

You'll see elsewhere on this sub-forum some of the biggest challenges to naturalism that I've identified and why I believe that science is still a megaphone for the glory of the Creator.

Glad to have you along for the ride... and anyone else regardless of your perspective. There is plenty of room here for healthy debate.

[robin]

Regarding evolution, I tend to concede that there is evidence of common ancestry, and I agree with your sentiment that if it occurred, it happened suddenly (relatively with the time frames we're looking at) and not primarily as a result of random processes, but most likely as the result of God's direct creative involvement.

I would be interested in seeing this evidence. From my understanding, this has become the default position for evolutionist because of the lack of evidence (transitional fossils).

Robin

[Josh]

Robin, here's a link to a fairly long discussion between "Hume" and I regarding Common Ancestry, which at least to some degree answers your question. I'm going to post a quick response to your question at the end for further discussion on TCA (theory of common ancestry):

Common Ancestry

[Douglas]

I was won over to the old earth position through a very odd source. I was doing research on a totally unconnected topic, infant baptism or something like that. I ran across an article that was cited in the bibliography of a book i was using as a source. I will have to try and find it. The article was written by a Christian geographer. This fellow had in his studies come to the overwhelming conclusion that the geography of the earth pointed without a doubt to a much older earth than his beliefs allowed. His article was a challenge to the theological community to seriously reexamine their assumptions about the age of the earth/universe in light of geographic evidence.

For me it was an incredible experience. Here was a strong Christian honestly doing his work and finding that the earth under his feet told a different was from that which he had believed. He has no ulterior motive and no agenda. Just a Christian brother asking questions. It was and excellent article an started me down a very different path that i had ever thought to take. Needless to say this opinion has not been very well accepted and i very rarely mention it, but there it is. That is what i get for doing good research.

[christopher]

I remain agnostic on the age of the earth and the universe.

I've heard good arguments on both sides. It actually is one of my least favorite topics because I don't see a lot of practical application one way or the other.

I will say for my part though, I have no problem believing that God might create an earth and a universe "ex nihilo" that appeared old from the get go. That is, I can see him placing the light from the stars (spanning billions of light years) in place at that same time the stars were created if He so chose. I can see Him placing all the elements (excess argon, radioactivity, etc.) that would give the appearance of age even though it's young. There may even be a hint of that in Adam and Eve. My impression is that they were created as fully grown adults. A doctor (without that information) who examined them "scientifically" would likely give them an age much older than a few hours based on the the physiological evidence. But I don't have a problem seeing OEC either.

However, I do find the dogmatic evolutionary claims pushed up from the "scientific community" to be very much less than honest and unbiased. I've yet to see evidence produced that would compel the average unbiased observer to conclude evolution took place. That in itself doesn't mean it didn't happen, and that God couldn't use it in His creation somehow, but the theory as presented has an undeniably naturalistic agenda attached to it IMO. I've asked evolutionists to give me the most compelling evidence they can and it always ends up being a "house of cards" to me.

But then again, I'm probably not completely unbiased about it either.

BTW, out of curiosity, what is a "residual feature"? Is that like a vestigial organ? And how is it identified as "residual"?

[sonlyte]

one interesting fact of current animal biology which I always in my young earth days wondered about, was the left over bone inside the whale which is apparently a foot like bone. I was pretty young when I learned about it and I haven't looked much further into it, but it suggests that somehow or other, some whales may have had hind feet. One problem with a view about God creating appearance of age is that fossils would have to have been inserted into them since the creation of life came after the creation of rock. However one problem with the extremely slow process of laying down geological strata is that only fossils which are rapidly buried would be preserved, but these layers took millions of year to form, so how did both processes happen?

[christopher]

Or perhaps we are mistaken in our methods of dating rocks and interpreting strata.

Are you familiar with the studies surrounding the Mt. St. Helens eruption of 1980? There were "strata" studied there that closely resembled the "strata" that supposedly took millions of years to form. Also, they dated lava rocks formed from the 1980 blast at over 300,000 years old according to the potassium/argon method of dating. It's enough to at least raise questions about dating methods.

It's been several years since I read the articles so I can't wax eloguent about the details. But it's an interesting study to say the least.

[Josh]

Here's a good "lay article" on the reliability of dating methods:

The Dynamics of Dating

For more technical articles, take this link: www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#young_earth_vs_old_earth and scroll down to the:

Can the measurements for the age of the earth be trusted?

Regarding Mt. St. Helens, growing up with a young-earth perspective, I remember seeing that used as a counter to dating methods. But I've read so many rebuttals of such claims that answered point by point the criticisms raised by young earth teachers that I don't seriously doubt the established dating methods.

And the history of young earth criticisms, IMO, has been that they latch on to some objection (rather than stating positive evidence of their own) and ride it until it's refuted and then grab ahold of another one. A good scientific theory, however, will continue to gain evidential force the more it's tested. Young earth scientists should be see new evidence for their theory piling in at an increasing rate. Instead, they seem to hop from one argument to the next.

And the fallback answer is often "God could have created with an illusion of age". To me that implies a deep-seated deception on God's part (and it would be a very elaborate hoax on God's part, in agreement with sonlyte) Whether or not some things in creation appeared fully formed, if the illusion is on such a grand scale, then what that means is that ultimately, science (and logical deduction itself) cannot be trusted to be valid test of truth. And it is no longer a tool which can reveal the Creator.

As it stands, if one holds to an accurate fossil record hundreds of evidences for the God of the Bible turn up. If one claims it's an illusion, then those evidences wash away as well.

This is tough stuff to "blog" on because the only way to really get anywhere is to do a TON of reading. But I do think there is some merit in just getting the basic arguments from all sides "on the table" so to speak.

Chris, I have a lot of thoughts on "why this matters", that I'd like to get into when I have a chance. But for now I'll just say that in some ways there are akin to the answers you and I might give to "whey does one's eschatology" matter?

[Josh]

Also, the other thing about the "appearance of age" thing is that it virtually disqualifies the "young earth" perspective from doing any real science. If anything can be a total illusion, then how can we trust the scientific claims of young-earth teachers?

[christopher]

And the fallback answer is often "God could have created with an illusion of age". To me that implies a deep-seated deception on God's part.

Why? Is it inconceivable that there might be another purpose than deception for an aged earth?

Would you then conversely conclude that God deceived mankind by formulating scripture (Genesis 1) in such a way that the majority of Christians and Jews throughout history would read the creation account to be 6 literal days? Direct revelation would seem like even more of a deception to me than a man-made deductive scientific method IMO.

Whether or not some things in creation appeared fully formed, if the illusion in one such a grand scale, then what that means is that ultimately, science (and logical deduction itself) cannot be trusted to be valid test of truth. And it is no longer a tool which can reveal the Creator.

I don't know that I would agree with that at all. Many "scientific" methods throughout history have been abandoned when they are discovered to be erroneous or built on assumptions. It's a process of trial and error. But I agree, the truth of science will always point to a Creator. But not necessarily man's methods.

Chris, I have a lot of thoughts on "why this matters", that I'd like to get into when I have a chance. But for now I'll just say that in some ways there are akin to the answers you and I might give to "whey does one's eschatology" matter?

Can't wait to hear them.

P.S. I once again find myself debating for a viewpoint I don't necessarily hold. Why is that? Maybe I just like to argue.

[Douglas]

admin said:

This is tough stuff to "blog" on because the only way to really get anywhere is to do a TON of reading. But I do think there is some merit in just getting the basic arguments from all sides "on the table" so to speak.

This has been my problem as well. I have a stack of books to read that is a mile high and most of them are about some other topic. To truly have an informed view on this would take me more time than i have right now. There is so much research being done and new information being published that the whole field seems to change every other month of so. This is why i am pushing for 48 hour days and less need for sleep. ;D

It is fun to philosophize about though!

[Josh]

Would you then conversely conclude that God deceived mankind by formulating scripture (Genesis 1) in such a way that the majority of Christians and Jews throughout history would read the creation account to be 6 literal days? Direct revelation would seem like even more of a deception to me than a man-made deductive scientific method IMO.

I don't think the language of Genesis 1 is deceptive. Many throughout history have seen the days as refering to epochs of time, including major Jewish and Christian interpreters. For just a sampling, see this post:

How Long Were the Creation Days?

There are things in Scripture that are veiled, but I don't think deceptive. Prophecy, for instance.

I was thinking some more about this "appearance of an old earth" theory today.

Just what reason would God have had for "making the universe look old"? I can conceive of a reason why Adam and Eve might have had to appear fully formed, but I can't think of a reason why the earth would have to appear old.

And again, I have to say, it's not just that I think it would be deceptive of God to create with the appearance of age, it's that I actually think that God purposefully left us the fossil record of an old earth to give us evidence of his creative actions and presence.

IMO, more weighty evidence for the Christian worldview comes out of an old-earth stance than a young earth, especially if the young earth perspective rests solely on the "easy out" of appearance of age.

This evidence includes firm reasons to believe that life could not have originated on its own (too narrow a time window), that naturalistic mechanisms alone could not have driven evolution (again, many demonstrable windows of time that are too narrow to explain by naturalism). Also, on the universe level, a 14 billion year old universe is positive evidence for the God of the Bible because it's a nearly universally agreed upon scientific theory (that continues to gather a snowball of evidence every day) that determines a beginning of space, matter, energy, and time that is actually witnessable through a telescope (or at least within a fraction of a second from the creation).

If "appearance of age" theories are correct, then we must throw out all that evidence and throw our hands up in ignorance.

But I think God winks at us through the fossil record, not fools us.

I don't know that I would agree with that at all. Many "scientific" methods throughout history have been abandoned when they are discovered to be erroneous or built on assumptions. It's a process of trial and error. But I agree, the truth of science will always point to a Creator. But not necessarily man's methods.

But if "appearance of age" is correct, then what would we abandon our current theories for? Once we've admitted that something that big cannot even be known, then what can we expect to know in it's place? This is like a solipsist's bad dream: anything could be an illusion.

And if God made things appear to be an illusion, then why do young earthers then keep looking for evidence of a young earth?

For more discussion on the Appearance of Age theory, take this link: Appearance of Age Theory?

[Douglas]

In my mind one of the strongest defenses of the faith comes from big bang theory. Before this theory was conceived the science of the day held to an eternal universe. This theory, by eliminating the beginning, logically eliminate the need for a creator.

However, with Einstein and his theories of relativity it became abundantly clear that matter and energy were not eternal and that the universe was slowing down and loosing energy. This by necessity means that there must have been a beginning and thus the need for a creator, something to start the process. If i remember right Einstein wrestled most deeply not with his theory but with its implication of a creator.

Because of this, an old universe/earth, to me, is a tool in our apologetics toolbox not a weakness nor something to be feared. Our belief in a creator God is logically possible and even necessary according the the most up-to-date science. In fact the further that science delves into the age and nature of the universe the more evidence they find of the creation event.

[christopher]

I've been meaning to post a reply on this, but it's taken me a long time to find it. For some reason, I have a hard time navigating this forum format and finding threads that are beyond the 10 most recent posts. Is there any way to mark things "unread" like on the phpbb forum boards?

Anyway, back on topic.

Josh, you make some good points for your view. Still, I leave room for God to have other purposes for certain characteristics of the universe to appear old to us that has nothing to do with illusion.

For example:
I can conceive of the stars being given billions of light years of light so that man has a way to navigate on the earth. I can conceive of rocks having excess argon to sustain an ecosystem of bacteria that lives in the rocks (I'm not saying that it does, only that I can conceive of things of that nature. Actually, I have no idea if argon has any benefit to bacteria at all.), etc.

But in my mind, it's a moot point because without direct revelation, it's really only speculation trying to determine why something was created a certain way. This is another reason I don't really think the matter has that much significance ultimately. If God truly wanted us to know in this life, He would have told us IMO.

But I know you're still going to share "why it matters" in your opinion, so I reserve the right to change my mind on that last statement.

[sonlyte]

What if in the beginning, the first second was "bent time" What if it was essentially a second of time in God's perspective, but because of the miraculous expansion of space and time through God's creative work, an arbitrary description was needed to make sense of an astrophysical concept. I really can't think of a way in which God could have explained the the various forces at work in his creative power in any way which would have been correctly undertood by those with a limited understanding of the universe. My big point is: if time was "in flux" so to speak, as he was essentially stretching out the universe "unrolling it like a scroll" I wonder if the passage of time from within the unrolling universe would "feel" like the reality which God's perspective alone could have perceived.
I kind of think that most misunderstandings between science and faith in this subject have to do with 2 things: Perspective of the story teller, and intent of the story teller (of the creation account).
And just to get an insight into the "why it matters" discussion, I LOVE this subject - like an amusement park or playground for my children, every knew thought or literary criticism is like an ice cream cone to me. In the place of life in which I find myself, I love to get lost in the wonder of thoughts of just how it could have been created, and what wisdom and power is revealed. Its a little intoxicating.
Have a good evening all!