In my previous blog, I discussed Young Earth Creationism (YEC). YEC is one interpretation of Genesis common among evangelical Protestant Christians. My goal in that blog was to show that there is a valid form of argument that, if true, requires us to accept YEC in spite of the scientific evidence to the contrary.
In this blog I discuss Old Earth Creationism (OEC), also known as "Progressive Creationism." OEC is another interpretation of Genesis, most common among Catholics and reformed Protestants. Although terms like "old" and "young" are relative, the YEC camp traditionally holds that our universe and our Earth are approximately 6,000 years old. By contrast, OEC's believe the Earth is roughly 4 billion years old while the universe is roughly 15 billion years old.
Like YEC, the logic of OEC can be summarized with a simple syllogism:
1. The Bible (or at least Genesis) is the inerrant word of God.
2. Science has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that we live on an old Earth and an old universe.
3. Therefore, Genesis does not teach that we live on a young Earth and in a young universe.
Assuming that a young Earth/universe and an old Earth universe are mutually exclusive, this logic is simple and incontrovertible. If Genesis is truly without error, and if we know that we live on an old Earth and in an old universe, then it must be true that Genesis does not teach YEC. Regardless of what you might think Genesis teaches, it is absolutely, logically, 100% impossible that Genesis teaches YEC.... if we agree that Genesis is the inerrant word of God and if we know beyond a reasonable doubt that YEC is incorrect.
The upshot of this syllogism is that OEC's or Progressive Creationists do not have to debate our interpretation of Scripture with YEC's. We can simply focus on the scientific evidence. If the scientific evidence clearly and irrefutably supports the conclusion that we live in an old universe -- and I believe it does -- then all Christians must agree that Genesis does not teach YEC, or else concede that Genesis contains errors.
OEC and Evolution
Evolution is generally defined as the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations. All Christians, including YEC's, believe that species have undergone and continue to undergo genetic changes over the generations (microevolution). Whether human beings in particular have evolved from entirely different species, however, is much more controversial.
By definition, YEC's must reject macroevolution -- or at least the view that human beings in particular arose from an entirely different species. That is because 6,000 years is an insufficient amount of time for such major changes to occur. By contrast, OEC's accept a 4 billion year old Earth, in which there is plenty of time for those changes to have occurred. OEC neither requires nor prohibits the view that our species in particular resulted from lesser animals. Some OEC's believe in this macroevolution, such as Howard J. Van Till. That view is typically called "Theistic Evolution." Other OEC's believe the same thing but use a different term. Francis Collins, for example, was the director of the Human Genome Project and a Christian. In his new book "The Language of God," he prefers the term "BioLogos." Other OEC's, such as Robert Newman and Norman Geisler, do not believe that our particular species resulted from successive changes in other species -- that is to say, we were created in the form we are in now, even if other species have radically changed. At any rate, my point is that while OEC allows for human evolution from lesser species, it certainly does not require it.
The Scientific Evidence -- Starlight
Before discussing the scientific evidence for OEC, an important observation is in order: God reveals Himself to us via nature just like He does via Scripture. The Bible itself tells us that we can and indeed have a responsibility to learn about God by studying Creation (Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:20). Thus, the scientific method should be an ally in our quest to understand God's truth, not an enemy.
With that said, several lines of evidence support the conclusion that we live on an old Earth and an old universe. I will focus on two: starlight and radiometric dating. Starlight: We all remember from middle school math classes that Distance = Rate x Time. The speed of light is approximately 186,000 miles per second or 6 trillion miles per year; that is its rate. Using the Hubble telescope and other astrometric readings, we can ascertain the distance of many stellar objects. The Andromeda Galaxy, for example, is measured out at approximately 15 trillion miles away. If we plug in the D = R x T equation, we see that 15 trillion miles ("D") = 6 trillion miles/year ("R") x Time. Divide by "R" (6 trillion miles/year) on each side of the equation, and we see that 2.5 million miles = Time measured in light years. In other words, the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away. That galaxy is visible on a clear night from Earth. But if that galaxy is 2.5 million light years away, then that means it takes 2.5 million years for the light from those stars to reach Earth. In other words, we can be certain that those stars have been in existence for at least 2.5 million years.
YEC Responses to Starlight
A few YEC's have argued that the universe is actually quite small, so that it only takes a few light years to transverse it. Aside from the obvious problem -- how do we account for our erroneous measurements of the distance of far-off stellar objects? -- Robert Newman points out another problem with this hypothesis: "If the universe were really quite small physically, then the very dim stars and galaxies we see in our telescopes would also be quite small -- too small for gravity to hold them together at their high temperatures." (Three Views on Creation and Evolution, 109)
A second YEC response is that God created the stars with the light already on its way to us so that we would be able to see the light immediately. But here's the problem. When we view a source of light, we are seeing the information that emanated from that source at the time it began its trip to Earth. When we look up at the sun, for example, it's not as if the light from the sun reached us instantaneously. Rather, we are seeing light from the sun that is several minutes old, because that's how long it took the light to reach the Earth. Newman explains the problem for YEC's who argue that God created the universe so that the light was already well on its way to Earth at the time of Creation: "when we look at the star Sirius we see what it was doing twelve years ago; when we look at the Andromeda Galaxy, we see what it would have been doing 2.5 million years ago if it had existed then, but it didn't, so we are really seeing a continuous stream of events that never occurred -- fictitious history! As most of the universe is more than 10,000 light years away, most of the events revealed by light coming from space would be fictional. Since the Bible tells us that God cannot lie, I prefer to interpret nature so as to avoid having God give us fictitious information." (Three Views on Creation and Evolution, 110)
Scientific Evidence -- Radiometric Dating
Radiometric dating is a system by which the quantity of a particular isotope (i.e. Carbon-14 or Uranium-234) contained in a fossil or other segment is tested. We know the rate at which that isotope decays, and so by measuring how much decay has occurred, we can calculate how long the decay has been going on -- in other words, when the fossil or segment was formed.
Robert Newman observes that tests of "rocks using various radioactive decay processes... give ages for various events in the history of these rocks ranging back to a few billion years." (Newman, Three Views on Creation and Evolution, 110)
One particularly good form of radiometric dating is uranium-thorium. This method "gives the same answer as does C-14.... the ages often differ by 10 to 20 percent, but when measuring the age of a forty thousand year old bone, does it really make a difference if the age is not actually forty thousadn years but 'only' thirty thousand years? That's still a long way from the biblical account of six days." (Schroeder, The Science of God, 42) Moreover, Dr. Hugh Ross notes that by this method, "Fossils of four extinct species of whales... have been dated at 52 million, 52 million, 50 million, and 48 million years ago, respectively." (The Genesis Question, 50)
YEC's should bear in mind that neither Prof. Newman nor Dr. Schroeder nor Dr. Ross are secular scientists with a stated agenda to disprove theism (i.e. Richard Dawkins). Quite the opposite: this information is coming from God-fearing Bible-believers.
YEC Objections to Radiometric Dating
Many of the YEC objections to radiometric dating focus on Carbon-14, and rightly so. Carbon-14 dating is -- at best -- reliable for dating objects to 50,000 years. In addition, MIT biophysicist Dr. Gerald Schroeder notes that "with C-14, there has always been room for suspicion. For the ages to be valid, the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere must always have been constant.... There is now evidence that cosmic radiation has not been absolutely constant during the eras that C-14 is used for fossil dating." (The Science of God, 42)
YEC objections to other forms of radiometric dating, however, are not nearly as strong. For example, it is sometimes alleged that Potassium-Argon ("K-Ar") dating is unreliable because of known errors in that method. While that statement is true, I have two reponses. First, many of the errors occurred because K-Ar was used improperly. Because K-Ar decays verrrrrrrry slowly, it is most useful for measuring fossils that are least a few hundred thousand years old. Second, when K-Ar says a fossil is 10 million years old, who cares if it proves to be only 5 million years old instead? YEC is still refuted.
One YEC website points out that all forms of radiometric dating must assume that "The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there)." But that objection consists of desperate, unfalsifiable speculation. There is no apparent reason to conclude that the isotopes have undergone fundamental changes or that daughter isotopes snuck in, and the website gives no examples of such ever occurring. And because there are so many independent forms of radiometric dating -- Carbon-14, Uranium-235, Potassium-Argon -- we'd have to assume that our starting conditions for each isotope was wrong.
Scriptural Evidence -- Beginning Presumption
Before discussing the Scriptural evidence for OEC, an important observation is in order: each of us is created in God's image (Genesis 1:27) and God does not want anyone to perish but for that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). There is no reason to think that God has made salvation more difficult today than He did in generations past.
But if YEC's are correct, that is exactly what God has done: I cannot help the fact that I was born in an era in which we have the scientific method, an era in which there are serious stumbling blocks to Biblical faith that did not exist just a few centuries ago. Had I lived a thousand years ago, I would never have been inundanted by this scientific evidence, and thus it would have been much easier for me to accept the Creation account thus the rest of the Bible.
Did God really intend the Bible to become a much greater obstacle to our faith in Him today than it was a couple centuries ago? If yes, has God arbitrarily made it more difficult for people in the modern era to come to Him than people in past era's? And how do we reconcile that view of science with Scripture like Psalm 19 and Romans 1:20 which encourage us to examine nature in order to learn about God?
I believe that God designed His word to be equally accessible and relevant to all peoples at all times throughout history. Now that's the kind of book we'd expect from an omnipotent God! Furthermore, we should interpret the Bible with an eye toward God's salvific purpose. Thus, we arrive at a presumption that His truth is no easier or harder to accept today than it was for people in previous generations.
Scriptural Evidence -- The Length of Each Day
As I noted in the syllogism above, it is not necessary for me to show exactly why YEC's are mistaken in order to know that they are mistaken. If Premises (1) and (2) of the syllogism are true, then we know that YEC is mistaken even before considering the text of Genesis 1. I will discuss the Scriptural text not for the sake of other Christians -- I really don't care if they adopt an OEC view or not -- but for seekers. I want seekers to know that OEC is not some convenient slight of hand but rather a comfortably supported, very mainstream view within Christian communities.
I turn now to the text of Genesis 1. Here are six quick reasons to believe the "day" (Hebrew: yom) of Genesis 1 is longer than 24 hours. Please be advised that I was raised Jewish and I am proficient in Biblical Hebrew. First, consider the Hebrew word yom. Although this word often refers to a 24-hour period, the Bible also uses the term to describe a much longer period, i.e. the "time" of Genesis 4:3, "continually" in Genesis 6:5, and "remain" in Genesis 8:22. Also, remember that the infamous "Yom (Day) of the Lord" (Isaiah 13, Joel 1-3, Amos 5, Zephaniah 1) refers to the seven year Tribulation. Granted, the mere fact that yom sometimes refers to a longer period than 24 hours does not mean it always does so, but the precedent set in those passages does open the possibility.
Second, the Bible teaches us that a thousand years to us are but a day before God (Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8). Given that Genesis 1 describes a purely divine activity with no human involvement, it is reasonable to infer that Genesis 1 is written from God's perspective, not ours.
Third, Genesis itself juxtaposes the term "generations" (Hebrew: tohledah) to equal a "day" (Gen. 2:4, Gen.5:1). And those verses refer explicitly back to Genesis 1, too. It is worth observing that the NIV Bible conceals the obvious implications of these verses by changing the wording, but every other version -- the KJV, NKJV, the NSAB, and the Amplified Bible -- correctly translates tohledah as "generations."
Fourth, the third day of Genesis 1 surely took longer than 24 hours because verses 1-19 say that God created trees which bore fruit according to their various kinds. It doesn't take a degree in horticulture to know that trees need several years to bear fruit.
Fifth, OEC's are often accused of interpreting Genesis 1 metaphorically or allegorically. That is not true. We believe God created the Earth in six literal days, but the time it takes for a literal day to pass depends on whether your perspective is from Earth or elsewhere in the universe. That's no joke. Einstein's Theory of Relativity shows that time passes much faster on a planet with higher gravity than it does on ours. Dr. Schroeder explains the practical consequences: "imagine a planet so massive that its gravity slowed time by a factor of 350,000 relative to Earth's rate of time. That meant that while we here on Earth live out two years, a mere three minutes would tick by on that imaginary planet." (The Science of God, 48) So if I write you a letter from this imaginary planet and say "I've been here one day!" I mean it literally -- but in the time that one literal day passed for me, roughly 350,000 literal days will have passed for you (almost one thousand literal years!). Thus, the OEC interpretation of yom is actually quite literal -- but it's based on literal time as experienced by God, not by Earth.
Sixth, it is arguably not even possible that each day of Genesis 1 is based on Earth-time. Dr. Schroeder explains why: "there is no possible way for those first six days to have had an Earth-based perspective simply because for the first two of those six days there was no Earth! As Genesis 1:2 states, 'And the Earth was unformed...'" (The Science of God, 51) Earth is formed on Day 3! Whatever measure of time is being used in the first two days, it is surely not from the perspective of a planet that doesn't exist.
Arguments five and six become much more complex and impressive in MIT biophysicist Dr. Gerald Schroeder's book, in which he demonstrates that not only are the six days of Genesis not based on Earth-time, but that they are based on Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR), a universal clock of sorts that has been left over from the Big Bang. "The Science of God" helped make a believer out of me.
The Scriptural Evidence -- The Order of Creation
Even though Genesis 1 in Hebrew accomdates and, I daresay, plainly teaches an ancient Earth and universe, there is still the problem of order. Regardless of how long each day is, does Genesis 1 teach that we had light on Earth during day 1 even though the sun and stars were not created later, until day 4? And how did plants survive on day 3, when plants depend on photosynthesis and there was no sun until day 4?
To my knowledge, the following sequence/order is well accepted in the scientific community: first we have the Big Bang; then the Milky Way and our solar system formed; then the Earth cooled and liquid water appeared, followed almost immediately by bacteria and photosynthetic algae; then Earth's atmosphere became transparent as it became oxygenated; then multicelluar animals and insects appeared; and then mammals and ultimately mankind appeared.
That order is exactly what we find in Genesis! Day 1 starts at the beginning of time and God instantaneously creates light and darkness. That sounds a lot like the Big Bang, in which "light literally broke free as electrons bond to atomic nuclei." (Schroeder, The Science of God, 67) On Day 2, the "heavenly firmament" which took shape is the disc of the Milky Way, which are pretty much the only heavens we can see unaided from Earth. Day 3 describes the formation of our own planet, Earth, and its dry land. Day 3 also marks the appearance of liquid water and plants, which were the first form of life on Earth. On Day 4, Earth's atmosphere became transparent due to the increased oxygen from the plants, which "gave light on the Earth" and allowed us to see the sun and the stars that had already been formed and were continuing to be formed. On Day 5, birds, insects, and sealife appeared -- after plans but before mammals, just like biologists have insisted for decades. Finally, on Day 6, God created cattle and other mammals, which were ultimately followed by His creation of mankind.
So the Bible teaches us that God's order went like this: The Big Bang ---> The Milky Way, including the sun -----> Earth, followed quickly by water and plants -----> transparent atmosphere -----> multicellular animal life -----> complex mammals -----> Man. And that's exactly what science tells us, too. Note that this view resolves the "light/sun" problem and the photosynthesis problem because the light in Day 1 comes from the Big Bang, and our sun is actually formed at the end of Day 2; but it doesn't become visible until after plants have already appeared. Note also that the order of Genesis 1 is silent as to whether humans in particular evolved from these other mammals; it just says we appeared after them.
Also, my view on the light/sun issue is the same interpretation voiced in the Talmud. (Hagigah 12A; Rashi) The Talmud is the ancient Jewish commentary on the Hebrew Bible, which dates to the 3rd century A.D., long before there was any scientific controversy over Genesis. Although Christians do not believe the Talmud is the inerrant word of God, it is nevertheless a very persuasive commentary that originates from a people who were intimately familiar with the language and structure of Genesis.
Conclusion
It is so amazing to think that God's word was written in such a way that it made sense to an ancient person -- written in a way that neither catapulted nor inhibited our social development... and yet it is equally relevant and true for us.
Between starlight and radiometric dating, I believe we have sufficient evidence to prove Premise (2) in the syllogism contained at the beginning of this blog. I have not even addressed other lines of evidence, i.e. the ways in which platetectonics and crusts in Earth's layer showcase an old Earth. Because the Bible itself teaches us that studying nature is a way of learning about God, we should embrace this research and allow it to enhance our understanding of His word in the modern world.
Furthermore, even if we considered the Bible in a vacuum, without allowing any outside science into it, the proposition that we live on an old Earth and in an old universe would be comfortably supported. Thus, Premise (2) of my syllogism is true. And if Premise (2) of the syllogism is true, then YEC's must rescind their position. After all, YEC's have already accepted Premise (1), and if both premises are true, it is logically necessary that Conclusion (3) is true as well.
I continue to respect my Christian brothers and sisters who cling to the YEC view despite good Scriptural evidence and very good scientific evidence to the contrary. I do not take the radical step of calling their views un-Christian. I am very concerned, however, by YEC's who have slammed the door of faith in the faces of seekers by declaring that YEC is the only reasonable interpretation of Scripture supported by mainstream Christians. That claim is outright false. If you want to believe YEC, fine -- but please don't make it a stumbling block for seekers.