This is another thought experiment. There are two premises to this experiment:
1. The earth was created 6000 years ago in six 24-hour days, as outlined in the first two chapters of Genesis. Each of the days is 24 hours and they sequentially describe what happened each day.
2. It appears that the universe is on the order of 13 to 14 billion years old. This appearance is so striking that in all the careful scientific analysis, everything is consistent with an old universe. Sometimes there seems to be anomalies, inconsistencies with what is observed and the age of the universe, but as measurements and observations are refined, these too fall in line with being consistent with a 13 to 14 billion year old universe.
I do not know if anyone is advocating this view. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis certainly is not. Neither do the people at the Institute for Creation Research. They would disagree with premise 2. Scientists who believe that the universe is 13 to 14 billion disagree with premise 1. Let's note how people differ with the premises but move on with the thought experiment and run with these two premises.
Oh -- as a parenthetical note, it is possible that Tim Challies was reporting this viewpoint in his blog about the Ligonier Ministries’ annual conference. This is the position I take whenever I take the young earth/universe view the third month of every prime number year (that makes March of 2011 my young universe/earth viewpoint month).
So, back to the premises. So, according to this thought experiment model, the universe/earth were created 6000 years ago, but all the empirical evidence looks as if the universe sprang into existence 13.74 billion years ago.
So,we live in the reality of a 6000 year old universe, but a virtual reality of a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. It is as if this is a simulation, an extremely good simulation, of an old universe.
In this thought experiment you can see why scientists fall for believing we are in an old universe. It really looks old. You can also see why many Christians, like me, also fall for thinking the universe is old -- it really looks old. The only ones who aren't fooled are the ones who read Genesis literally, taking the days as six, 24-hour sequential days. But those other Christians, like me, see that the evidence for the old universe is analogous to once held view of the earth centered universe -- that even my heroes Martin Luther and John Calvin mistakenly believed in. They, after all, simply took the Bible literally when it said that God made the sun stand still (implying it when around the earth) and that the earth is unmoved (implying the earth stands still and everything moves around the earth). Since theologians and the church did this once before without ill effects, shouldn't it be done again because of the strong evidence? -- or so would Christians like me think.
Some questions assuming these premises:
1. Suppose the study of the solar system as if it were billions of years old showed a pattern that it appears that every 10,000 years comets would bombard earth from a certain direction, and the last bombardment appears to be 10,000 years ago. Should we ignore this study because nothing existed prior to 6,000 years ago?
2. Given that reality is the universe is only 6,000 years old, even though the overwhelming evidence is that it looks like its billions of year old, why should we give up the earth centered universe since the language of the Bible seems to imply the earth is at the center it while the scientific evidence points the other way?
1. The earth was created 6000 years ago in six 24-hour days, as outlined in the first two chapters of Genesis. Each of the days is 24 hours and they sequentially describe what happened each day.
2. It appears that the universe is on the order of 13 to 14 billion years old. This appearance is so striking that in all the careful scientific analysis, everything is consistent with an old universe. Sometimes there seems to be anomalies, inconsistencies with what is observed and the age of the universe, but as measurements and observations are refined, these too fall in line with being consistent with a 13 to 14 billion year old universe.
I do not know if anyone is advocating this view. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis certainly is not. Neither do the people at the Institute for Creation Research. They would disagree with premise 2. Scientists who believe that the universe is 13 to 14 billion disagree with premise 1. Let's note how people differ with the premises but move on with the thought experiment and run with these two premises.
Oh -- as a parenthetical note, it is possible that Tim Challies was reporting this viewpoint in his blog about the Ligonier Ministries’ annual conference. This is the position I take whenever I take the young earth/universe view the third month of every prime number year (that makes March of 2011 my young universe/earth viewpoint month).
So, back to the premises. So, according to this thought experiment model, the universe/earth were created 6000 years ago, but all the empirical evidence looks as if the universe sprang into existence 13.74 billion years ago.
So,we live in the reality of a 6000 year old universe, but a virtual reality of a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. It is as if this is a simulation, an extremely good simulation, of an old universe.
In this thought experiment you can see why scientists fall for believing we are in an old universe. It really looks old. You can also see why many Christians, like me, also fall for thinking the universe is old -- it really looks old. The only ones who aren't fooled are the ones who read Genesis literally, taking the days as six, 24-hour sequential days. But those other Christians, like me, see that the evidence for the old universe is analogous to once held view of the earth centered universe -- that even my heroes Martin Luther and John Calvin mistakenly believed in. They, after all, simply took the Bible literally when it said that God made the sun stand still (implying it when around the earth) and that the earth is unmoved (implying the earth stands still and everything moves around the earth). Since theologians and the church did this once before without ill effects, shouldn't it be done again because of the strong evidence? -- or so would Christians like me think.
Some questions assuming these premises:
1. Suppose the study of the solar system as if it were billions of years old showed a pattern that it appears that every 10,000 years comets would bombard earth from a certain direction, and the last bombardment appears to be 10,000 years ago. Should we ignore this study because nothing existed prior to 6,000 years ago?
2. Given that reality is the universe is only 6,000 years old, even though the overwhelming evidence is that it looks like its billions of year old, why should we give up the earth centered universe since the language of the Bible seems to imply the earth is at the center it while the scientific evidence points the other way?
3 comments:
Here is another place to discuss this.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2010/07/houston-we-still-have-a-proble.html
NewKid,
There's some interesting reading at your link (and several other links there). It's difficult to have a reasonable discussion at a place with so many people of varying backgrounds. It seems to be overwhelmingly the case that old earth creationism is the more popular view amongst North American evangelicals. Two things contribute to this: (1) we have come to largely trust just about anything that comes from the mouth of the scientific establishment insofar as "raw data" is concerned. So, while the age of the earth was determined within the context of an unbiblical naturalistic worldview, we can Christianize the "raw data" to fit Scripture. In other words, we disagree with the worldview of the establishment while at the same time unquestionably accepting the findings of their research. Now, it is obviously not the case that all of their findings are incorrect as a result of their faulty presuppositions. God's truth is true for both the believer and the non-believer and this is the bullet point we have used to develop the concept of "raw data" which has gotten us into trouble.
Secondly, to put it in simple terms, we just don't know how to read the Old Testament anymore.
Earl,
Premise 2 is not necessarily problematic. Creation with the appearance of age is explicitly and implicitly taught in the first two chapters of Genesis.
Let's follow the logic of your argument using a different example other than the universe. Let's look at Adam. Let's suppose we take back some modern medical equipment to assess the age of Adam only moments after God created him. Given the analysis of our equipment would we believe Adam if he told us he was only a couple of hours old? Let's also suppose we take back a chainsaw to cut down some of those trees in the garden. Will those trees have rings in them?
Here's another thought experiment for you. Did the wine Jesus created out of water have the "appearance" of age? If it did or didn't, what does that say about the supposed deceitfulness of such activity?
Now, to your questions:
1. I suppose it depends on how destructive the comments are. If it happens every 10,000 years and the last time it happened was 10,000 years ago then we're due for another showering! Let's set this question in the context of our Adam example above. Should we medically treat Adam like an infant or like a man? The appearance of age does not make modern science irrelevant.
2. The language of visual appearance in Scripture allows for scientific heliocentricity but it does not allow for an actually old universe/earth. Remember, special revelation has priority. Also, from a theological standpoint it doesn't matter whether heliocentric or geocentric is the correct scientific position; it isn't a question Scripture speaks to. It is interesting to note, however, that Genesis 1 is at least symbolically geocentric. The earth is created first (after heaven) and then the rest of creation proceeds around that center point.
Interesting discussion.
Jared - I believe tend to follow this premise.
Premise 2 is not necessarily problematic. Creation with the appearance of age is explicitly and implicitly taught in the first two chapters of Genesis.
Post a Comment