So, the universe is HUGE. It takes light from distant galaxies billions of years to reach earth. That alone indicates the universe is billions of years old. It is certainly possible for God to have created the universe with photons (light) in motion, just as it would be if they originated from the various galaxies stretching across the universe. But there are so many things that fit with an old universe that it would take volumes to list. If the universe actually was created mere thousands of years ago, the conditions we see of the universe all around us then perfectly simulate a universe that is 13 to 14 billion years old.
For Christians, we must make a judgment call on the evidence. For many, the perfect simulation of the old universe is not a problem. Certainly an omnipotent God described in the Bible can do that -- create a universe thousands of years ago that looks so consistently billions of years old. But the Bible also uses language and descriptions that put the earth at the center of the universe and we dismiss that today without even a thought In my mind, it is more easy to believe that we live in an earth centered universe that simulates the earth going around the sun than to believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old -- that is how strong the evidence is for an old universe. I know there are Christians who will say I put science ahead of the Bible. By that same reasoning, they put science ahead of the Bible when they adopt a sun centered solar system. These Christians part company with John Calvin and Martin Luther, who firmly believed the earth was the center of the universe because the Bible said so. But, those who are convinced that anyone who factors in and is convinced of the evidence for an old universe is selling out on biblical authority -- I would strongly urge them to stay the course and hold to an young universe. It is if first importance not to sell out on biblical authority.In fact, if these blog posts are troubling, by all means stop reading them.
I believe the Bible is inerrant. How can that be? Genesis uses the word days -- six days to describe the creation of the heavens and the earth -- occurring thousands of years ago. Is it possible that the language of creation, the days of creation, can be understood in a way outside of six consecutive 24-hour days, just as we understand the language describing the earth at the center of the universe is not to be taken "literally"? I think so, and I will mention a couple of plausible approaches that theologians I respect have discussed, but concentrate on one approach that makes the most sense to me.
The first approach I mention is the day-age theory. This is probably the one I am exposed to the most simply because I enjoy listening to the podcasts of Reasons to Believe, a ministry of Christian astrophysicist Hugh Ross and others. They have a variety of podcast series you can get from iTunes, searching for Reasons to Believe. They observe that the Hebrew word for "day" in Genesis has other uses than simply a 24-hour day, just as "day" does in the English language. How I used "day" in the title of this post is an example of using "day" in other than a 24-hour sense. Reasons to Believe propose that days in Genesis refers to long epochs of time in God's creative activity.
Personally, I have reservations in how Reasons to Believe interpret Genesis, reading in a whole lot of detailed scientific theory in the Genesis narration of creation that just doesn't make sense to me in that I don't think late twentieth/twenty-first century scientific theory was purposely inspired by God into the Bible. Read some of Reasons to Believe books or listen to their podcasts and you decide if it makes sense.
However, I find Reasons to Believe (RTB) podcasts useful because I enjoy reading and listening to perspectives different from my own (I also listen to young earth creationists), and RTB discusses all sorts of science and theological issues that illuminate in so many ways -- without the agenda of a young earth creationist which, I'm sorry to say, often skews the science and doesn't present the whole picture. RTB topics range from radiometric dating, multiple parallel universes, the philosophical and theological problems of evolution, and the list goes on and on.
The next post I will examine another approach to Genesis days.
5 comments:
1. You can call the mature young creation anything you want (e.g. creation with "simulated age", "appearance of age", etc.) but it doesn't change the biblical data informing us that God created a mature world. Let's bring your argument down to a more manageable example. Did God create Adam so that he would look like a full grown man or did God create him to be a full grown man? You acknowledge the possibility that God could create a universe that looks old but why not suppose instead that he created a universe that is old?
2. The question of the universe's actual age and the question of geocentricity are not linguistically (or scientifically) analogous in the way you are presenting them. The question of age is related to issues of design whereas the question of geocentricity is related to issues of perception and perspective. Science is very good at telling us what the world looks like but it is utterly clueless when it comes to establishing meaning. On these two examples, then, it is not merely a matter of capriciously accepting or rejecting the scientific data.
3. I've already mentioned a problem for understanding the days of Genesis 1 as anything other than normal days. There are the specific time descriptors of "evening" and "morning" in the context of defining what a "day" is. Genesis informs us that "day" fundamentally means "light" and "night" fundamentally means "dark". We see from verses 2-3 that darkness is first and then comes light, an eschatological movement theme that will run throughout the rest of the narrative culminating in the Sabbath where we find no such descriptors (or movement). To keep this short, the issue isn't understanding "day" literally, rather it's understanding "day" literarily.
Furthermore, no one is denying that the Hebrew word for "day" has other uses; this is a red herring. The question is what is the definitive use of "day" and on what is that definition based. It requires some pretty impressive linguistic acrobatics (amongst other things) to get the days of Genesis 1 to be anything other than a normal sequence of regular days.
4. So what is "the whole picture"? Does RTB elaborate on what it means for the heavenly bodies to be lights? I'm sure RTB acknowledges that they are, indeed, glorious as they reflect the glory of their creator. This is one of the reasons we enjoy looking at them, representing glory is one of their primary functions as lights. Does RTB elaborate on what it means for heavenly bodies to be signs or symbols of rulers and of government? The bodies are positioned by God in heaven and heaven rules the earth. So the bodies symbolize rulers of the earth (also positioned by God). Does RTB elaborate on how the heavenly bodies are used to regulate seasons and festivals? In the Old Covenant the moon governed Israel's calendar and Genesis teaches us that the moon also governs the night. So here we see symbolically that the Old Covenant is the covenant of "night" which eventually moves into the New Covenant (the covenant of "day"). I could go on because even this isn't the "whole picture" but it is a picture that cannot exist without a "literal" reading of Genesis 1. All of these connections and symbols are lost on and in science. I should point out, here, that heliocentricity does not affect these connections and symbols at all. But what happens to them if the days are ages, or if they are merely linguistic or literary frameworks? If it were not for God's delineation how could we say whether day turns into night or night into day? We discover, then, that the "agenda" of young earth creationists is to couch science within a biblically structured worldview. If we let science start shaping Genesis then we let it start shaping the biblical worldview; this is backwards.
Jared, thanks for your comments.
Concerning (1), mature young earth. I grant you that it is certainly very possible that God created the universe that is old. I personally don't think so, for reasons that as I weigh them seem to outweigh the other considerations.
Let's think about God creating a mature tree. Such a tree will have tree rings because functionally they are needed to support the life and structure of the tree. It appears, just considering the tree rings, that the tree is possibly hundreds of years old. The rings are necessary for the tree for it to live and so it would be present and look old in that respect.
There are other things in a tree. Would the tree have burn scars where the wood and bark grew around it? God certainly could create it, but are those features necessary for the tree? Those things aren't needed for the tree.
Here is where I weigh what I think God is like from the description from the Bible. I think God is truthful, in his special revelation and in his general revelation. God's glory is revealed through his creation, so much so that no one is without excuse to acknowledge God from looking at his creation. If God created trees with burn scars, and God created the universe that had all the marks or a vastly older universe so that someone who has not read the Bible would naturally conclude that the universe is old when it is not -- then I think God is hiding himself rather than revealing himself. The universe does not have to look so old for humans to live on earth. You don't have to have a 4° blotchy background temperature that corresponds to what was predicted to be the result of a "big bang" years before it was discovered. These kinds of details go way beyond what is needed to support life, if the universe is thousands of years old, then this contributes to a misleading universe.
For me, this kind of thing is misleading and so God would not do it (making a young universe with unnecessary old details). I can't get around it. For you and others, this is no problem for God acting this way. In your view this not deceptive in any way -- so you easily see God doing this kind of thing.
So, I don't know how to bridge the gap in our respective views on this. So, I recognize you see it that way, but I can't go there, and I'm not asking you to change your view on this. I'm merely explaining why I don't think God would act in this way.
I'll take that other points in further comment responses.
Concerning (2) and the linguistic analogies of age and geocentricity. We view this issue through modern eyes. If you read the words of Calvin about a geocentric earth in his commentaries -- they had a design aspect in how Calvin talked about it. They still do have a design aspect. The earth is unshaken -- not because it is at the center of the universe, but because God has designed the earth, the physics, chemistry, the geology, the arrangement of the solar system,the stability of the sun so that that planet is unshaken. The design is still there in the geocentric language -- but not as what Calvin literally took it as. We have come to understand that geocentricity was an appearance aspect. The age of the universe, in my (perhaps mistaken) opinion, falls into this kind of category. Age as in thousands of years, as what appears to be in Genesis, and perhaps to the ancient eye, is an appearance as geocentricity was. To say the analogy does not fit is to presuppose the universe must be young. Of course when I say this analogy must fit, I am presupposing an old universe. So, it is possible this analogy fits and I am presenting a plausibility argument for why it does fit (recognizing this does not prove the point).
Concerning (3), I have addressed some of this in my next post.
Concerning (4), I am not going to defend RTB because I don't agree with there major approach. But I will say they have done a marvelous job in pointing out to people with science backgrounds how glorious God's creation is. They express their thoughts on why the heavenly bodies are signs for rulers. They've also pioneered the issues of "just right" design and critical physical constants that are extremely fine-tuned, so much so that atheistic astrophysicists have to postulate an infinite set of parallel universes to get around the "problem" of fine tuning.
So, I think RTB provides a huge contribution of evidence and ideas to the discussion that advances the discussion in many very significant ways.
Each ministry is unique. RTB may not attack some of the issues in the way you want. But make a significant contribution in their own way.
1. So, it's misleading for God to create a universe that looks old but not misleading for him to create a man that looks old? Also, you aren't getting my point in (1), namely that God didn't create a young universe; he created an old (or "mature", or "fully developed") one. And he did it in six days.
2. I still don't think you can use the two issues as analogies. Unlike geocentricity, there's simply no way to way to empirically verify the age of the universe; and there's no biblical/theological reason to accept the assumptions involved in modern science's estimation.
3. And there I will continue that discussion.
4. My point here is that the "whole picture" is actually a completely different picture than the one painted by old-earth advocates.I am suggesting that there is not a shred of "science" that is incompatible with a "young mature creation view". For someone like you I'd think this is that much-sought-after have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too position. You lose none of the "raw data" of astrophysics (or any other field of science in this controversy) and you remain true to what the author of Genesis is actually doing in giving us the primeval record.
Post a Comment