At various time in history, Christians have found themselves dissenting from the accepted findings of contemporary science. In the vast majority of cases, sincere Christian faith and strong trust in the Bible have led scientists to the discovery of new facts about God’s universe, and these discoveries have changed scientific opinion for all subsequent history. The lives of Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, Blaise Pascal, and may others are examples of this.
On the other hand, there have been times when accepted scientific opinion has been in conflict with people’s understanding of what the Bible said. For example, when the Italian astronomer Galileo began to teach that the earth was not the center of the universe but that the earth and other planets revolved around the sun, he was criticized, and eventually his writings were condemned by the Roman Catholic Church. This was because many people thought that the Bible taught that the sun revolved about the earth. In fact, the Bible does not teach that at all, but it was Copernican astronomy that made people look again at the Scripture to see if it really taught what they thought it taught. In fact, descriptions of the sun rising and setting merely portray events as they appear from the perspective of the human observer, and, from that perspective, they give an accurate description. But they imply nothing about the relative motion of the earth and the sun, and nowhere does the Bible explain what makes the sun go “down” in the viewpoint of the human observer. Yet the lesson of Galileo, who was forced to recant his teachings and who had to live under house arrest for the last few years of his life, should remind us that careful observation of the natural world can cause us to go back to Scripture and reexamine whether Scripture actually teaches what we thing it teaches. Sometimes, on closer examination of the text, we may find that our previous interpretations were incorrect.
There are some theories about creation seem inconsistent with the teachings of Scripture, for example Darwinian’s theory of evolution. The word evolution can be used in different ways. Sometimes it is used to refer to “micro-evolution”; small developments within one species, so that we see flies or mosquitoes becoming immune to insecticides, or human beings growing taller, or different colors and varieties of roses being developed. Innumerable examples of such “micro-evolution” are evident today, and no one denies that they exist. But that is not the sense in which the word evolution is usually used when discussion theories of creation and evolution.
Since Charles Darwin first published the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859, there have been challenges to his theory by Christian and non-Christians alike. Current neo-Darwinian theory is still foundationally similar to Darwin’s original position, but with refinements and modifications due to over a hundred years of research. In modern Darwinian evolutionary theory, the history of the development of life began when a mix of chemicals present on the earth spontaneously produced a very simple, probably one-celled life form. This living cell reproduced itself, and eventually there were some mutations or differences in the new cells produced. These mutations led to the development of more complex life forms. A hostile environment meant that many of them would perish, but those that were better suited to their environment would survive and multiply. Thus, nature exercised a process of “natural selection” in which the differing organisms most fitted to the environment survived. More and more mutations eventually developed into more and more varieties of living things, so that from the very simplest organism all the complex life forms on earth eventually developed through this process of mutations and natural selection.
It is important to understand the incredibly destructive influences that evolutionary theory has had on modern thinking. If in fact life was not created by God, and if human beings in particular are not created by God or responsible to him, but are simply the result of random occurrences in the universe, then of what significance is human life? We are merely the product of matter plus time plus chance, and so to think that we have any eternal importance, or really any importance at all in the face of an immense universe, is simply to delude ourselves. Honest reflection on this notion should lead people to a profound sense of despair.
Moreover, if all of life can be explained by evolutionary theory apart from God, and if there is no God who created us, then there is no supreme Judge to hold us morally accountable. Therefore, there are no moral absolutes in human life, and people’s moral ideas are only subjective preferences, good for them perhaps but not to be imposed on others. In fact, in such a case the only thing forbidden is to say that one knows that certain things are right and certain things are wrong.
There is another ominous consequence of evolutionary theory: If the inevitable processes of natural selection continue to bring improvement in life forms on earth through the survival of the fittest, then why should we hinder this process by caring for those who are weak or less able to defend themselves? Should we not rather allow them to die without reproducing so that we might move toward a new, higher form of humanity, even a “master race”? In fact, Marx, Nietzsche and Hitler all justified war on these grounds.
Finally, what about the discussions that even some Christians cannot even agree on, young earth or old earth? We come to this perplexing question about which Bible-believing Christians have differed for many years, sometimes sharply. The question is simply this: How old is the earth?
It is important to point out that all the matters we discussed earlier are of much more importance that this question. Our two options to choose from for a date of the earth are the “old earth” position, which agrees with the consensus of modern science that the earth is 4,500,000,000 years old, and the “young earth” position, which says that the earth is 10,000 to 20,000 years old, and that secular scientific dating schemes are incorrect. The difference between these two views is enormous: 4,499,980,000 years!
For young earth advocates, there is no need to ask whether animals died before the fall, because animals and man were both created on the sixth day, and there may have only been a short time before Adam and Eve sinned. This could have introduced death into the animal kingdom as well, as part of the curse of the fall (Genesis 3:17 – 19: Romans 8:20 – 23).
For old earth advocates, this is an important question. There are millions of apparently ancient fossils in the earth. Might they have come from animals who lived and died for long ages before Adam and Eve were created? Might have God created an animal kingdom that was subject to death from the moment of creation? This is quite possible. There was no doubt death in the plant world, if Adam and Eve were to eat plants; and if God had made an original creation in which animals would reproduce and also live forever, the earth would soon be overcrowded with no hope of relief. The warning to Adam in Genesis 2:17 was only the he would die if he ate of the forbidden fruit, not that animals would also begin to die.
What about dinosaurs? Current scientific opinion holds that dinosaurs became extinct about 65 million years ago, million of years before human beings appeared on the earth. But those who hold to six twenty-four hour days of creation and a young earth would say that dinosaurs were among the creatures created by God on the same day he created man (the sixth day). They would therefore say that dinosaurs and human beings lived on the earth at the same time and that dinosaurs subsequently became extinct (perhaps the flood). Young earth advocates of course would differ with the methods used to arrive at such ancient dates for dinosaurs.
Much of the dispute between “young earth” and “old earth” advocates hinges on the interpretation of the length of “days” in Genesis 1. Old earth supporters propose that the six “days” of Genesis 1 refer not to periods of twenty-four hours, but rather to long periods of time, millions of years, during which God carried out the creative activities described in Genesis 1. This proposal has led to a heated debate with other evangelicals.
In favor of viewing the six days as long periods of time is the fact that the Hebrew word yom, “day,” is sometimes used to refer not to a twenty-four-hour literal day, but to a longer period of time. We see this when the word is used in Genesis 2:4, for example: “In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,” a phrase that refers to the entire creative work of the six days of creation.
An additional argument for a long period of time in these “days” is the fact that the sixth day includes so many events that it must have been longer than twenty-four hours. The sixth day of creation (Genesis 1:24 – 31) includes the creation of animals and the creation of man and woman both. It was twenty-four-hour day, also on the sixth day that God blessed Adam and Eve and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and to have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth (Genesis 1:28). But that means that the sixth day included God’s creation of Adam, God’s putting Adam in the Garden of Eden to till it and keep it, and giving Adam directions regarding the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:15 – 17), his bringing all the animals to man for them to be named (Genesis 2:18 – 20), finding no helper fir for Adam (Genesis 2:20), and then causing a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and creating Eve from his rib (Genesis 2:21 – 25). The finite nature of man and the incredibly large number of animals created by God would by itself require that a much longer period of time that part of a day would be needed to include so many events.
Some have objected that whenever the word day refers to a period of time other than a twenty-four-hour day in the Old Testament the context makes it clear that this is the case, but since the context does not make this clear in Genesis 1 we must assume that normal days are meant. But to this we may answer that whenever the word day means a twenty-four-hour day, the context makes this clear as well. Otherwise, we could not know that a twenty-four-hour day is meant in that context. So this is not a persuasive objection. It simply affirms what everyone agrees to, namely that the context enables us to determine which sense a word will take when it has various possible meanings.
On the other side of this question are the arguments in the favor of understanding “day” as a twenty-four-hour day in Genesis 1.
First, it is significant that each of the days in Genesis 1 ends with the expression such as, “And there was evening, and there was morning (Genesis 1:5). The phrase “And there was evening, and there was morning” is repeated in verses 8, 13,19, 23 and 31. This seems to imply the sequence of events marking a literal twenty-four-hour day and suggests that the reader should understand it in that way.
Next, the third day of creation cannot be very long because the sun does not come into being until the fourth day, and the plants cannot live long without light. In response to this, it might be said that the light that God created on the first day energized the plants for millions of years. But that would suppose God to have created a light that is almost exactly like sunlight in brightness and power, but still not sunlight.
Finally, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that in the Ten Commandments the word day is used to mean a twenty-four-hour day:
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God; …for in sox days the LORD made the heaven and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore, the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” (Exodus 20:8 – 11).
Certainly in that text the Sabbath “day” us a twenty-four-hour day. This is again a weighty argument, and on the balance it gives additional persuasiveness to the twenty-four-hour day position. But once again it is not quite conclusive in itself, for one could respond that the readers were aware that the days there were unspecified periods of time, and that the Sabbath commandment merely told God’s people that, just as he followed a six-plus-one pattern in creation, so they were to follow a six-plus-one pattern in their lives. In fact, in the very next sentence of the Ten Commandments, “day” means “a period of time”.
Both “old earth” and “young earth” theories are valid options for Christians who believe the Bible today.
Many who believe that the earth is millions of years old maintain that the days of Genesis 1 are extremely long “ages” of time. The evident advantage of this view is that, if the current scientific estimate for an earth 4.5 billion years old is correct, it explains how the Bible is consistent with this fact. Among evangelicals who hold to an old earth view, this is a common position.
Another group of evangelicals interpreters rejects the dating system that currently give an age of millions of years to the earth and argue instead that the earth is quite young, perhaps 10,000 to 20,000 years old. Young earth advocates have produced a number of scientific arguments for a recent creation of the earth. Those who hold to a young earth general advocate to the following position.
Creation with an appearance of age: Many who hold to a young earth point out that the original creation must have had an “appearance of age” even from the first day. Another term for this view is “mature creationism,” since it affirms that God created a mature creation. The appearance of Adam and Eve as full-grown adults is an obvious example. They appeared as though they had lived for perhaps twenty or twenty-five years, growing up from infancy as human beings normally do, but in fact they were less than a day old. Similarly, they probably saw the stars the first night that they lived, but the light from most stars would take thousands or even millions of years to reach the earth. This suggests that God created the stars with light beams already in place. Adam and Eve would not have had to wait years before God told them which trees of the garden they could eat from and which they could not eat from, nor would they have had to wait weeks or months before edible plants grew large enough to provide them with food.
How old is the earth then? It is understandable, on the one hand, that God may have created a universe in which stars appeared to have been shining form 15 billion years, Adam appeared to have been living for 25 years, and some trees to have been living for 50 years, and some animals appeared to have been living for 1 to 10 years. On the other hand, it is difficult to understand why would God have created dozens or perhaps hundreds of different kinds of rocks and minerals on the earth, all of which actually were only one day old, but having the appearance of being 4.5 billion years old, exactly the apparent age that he also gave the moon and the meteorites when they, too, were only one day old. It is also difficult to understand why the evidence of star life cycles and the expansion of the universe would make the universe appear to be 15 billion years old if it were not. It is possible, but it seems unlikely, almost as if God’s only purpose in giving these uniform apparent ages was to mislead us rather than simply to have a mature, functioning universe in place.
Although conclusions are tentative, at this point in our understanding, Scripture seems to be more easily understood to suggest (but not to require) a young earth view, while the observable facts of creation seem increasingly to favor an old earth view. Both views are possible, but neither one is certain. And we must say very clearly that the age of the earth is a matter that is not directly taught in Scripture, but it is something we can think about by only drawing more or less probable inferences from Scripture. Given this situation, it would seem best (1) to admit that God may not allow us to find a clear solution to this question before Christ returns, and (2) to encourage evangelical scientist and theologians who fall in both young earth and old earth camps to begin to work together with much less arrogance, much more humility, and a much greater sense of cooperation in a common purpose.
The doctrine of creation has many applications for Christians today. It makes us realize that the material universe is good in itself, for God created it good and wants us to use it in ways pleasing to him. The doctrine of creation also reminds us that God is sovereign over the universe he created. He made it all, and he is Lord of all of it. We own all that we are and have to him, and we may have complete confidence that he will ultimately defeat all his enemies and be manifested as Sovereign King to be worshipped forever.