How old is the earth?

{Revised 11/21/09}

"How old is the earth?" and "When was the earth created?" are two separate questions. The former is a non-theological/scientific question while the latter is a theological indeterminate question.

How one answers these questions seems to be a major defining point among the creationist groups. Both the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) and the Old Earth Creationist (OEC) would give the same respective answer for each question (YEC would say that the answer for both questions is ~6,000 years; OEC would say that the answer for both is 4.65 billion years).

A YEC would infer that because God created the world (usually) 6,000 to 10,000 years years ago, He would therefore need to make the measurable parameters such that they would reflect that timeline. If not, so they say, then "God would be a deceiver." An example of this is the need to make the speed of light such that the time spent en-route from the stars would equate with something on the order of 6,000-10,000 years (changing speeds, etc). Answers in Genesis (AiG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) are examples of groups that hold this view.

An OEC assumes the (current) scientific data for the distances (via cosmic distance ladder) to the farthest stars, multiplies it with the speed of light (distance divided by time) and obtains time since creation. Hugh Ross (Reasons To Believe) is an example of someone who holds this view.

I don't think it a coincidence that both groups appear to be from Reformed backgrounds since Reformed (Zwinglianism/Calvinism and Arminianism) often seem to have a need to provide natural explanations for God's actions/miracles. The Reformed treatment of the Lord's Supper provides a good example of this, where the appearance of what is being received has greater emphasis than Christ's words.

In comparison, a confessional Lutheran would not necessarily need to have the same answer to both questions since we do not have the need to resolve everything the Bible says with our observations of the natural world.

One could make the case that, in some of the miracles performed by Jesus, there seems to be a discontinuity between actual time span experienced by humans and physical changes that Jesus brought about miraculously (which is why we call them miracles). For example, with the wine created by Jesus at the Wedding at Cana (John 2) notice how Jesus' miracle involved an interruption in the normal time line. The fact that the wine appeared "good" to the guests does not conflict with the fact that it was made only a little earlier that same day. There was no deception involved. Jesus spoke and it was so. He made it fully functional and ready-to-go; capturing all the characteristics of an fine wine. (This comparison between the created age of the earth and the wine at Cana differs, however, at least in this respect: the wine was not created out of nothing).

For the Lutheran, an approximate answer to "When was the earth created?" can be obtained by looking at the genealogies in the Bible (some YEC groups try to obtain dates from the Bible that are more specific than can be exegetically obtained; for example, using the Ussher chronology).

A Lutheran will also recognize that, since the Bible describes the created earth and universe as being fully functional but stops short of providing specifics, for example, distances to the stars, the question "How old is the earth?" or "How old does the universe appear?" is a non-theological/scientific one about which we are free to use our Christian freedom (and scientific knowledge) to assess.

These comments are not intended to make a case in favor of either a young earth or an old earth (I will save that for elsewhere). The point that I am making is this: from a confessional Lutheran perspective, an appearance of age (i.e., much longer than the assumed timeline since creation) with respect to some aspects of creation may be theologically acceptable.

Design Optimism

{Revised 9/25/10}

It's been my experience that scientists are often more optimistic about being able to successfully extrapolate fundamental scientific principles than engineers would be. Maybe that's because we (i.e., engineers) have experience in trying to industrialize such designs and therefore we see how often they don't work out in large scale production even though, in principle, they should.

This is not to say that when designs have problems, physical laws are being violated.  Rather, it is due to incomplete knowledge; knowledge which is sometimes filled in later and at other times, not.

Singularity

What makes the origin aspect particularly difficult to ascertain from a scientific perspective, is that the creation event itself, as well as the Flood, would each be viewed as singularities. That is, they are (from a scientific perspective) non-repeatable anomalies. Science requires an event to be repeatable in order to study and make measurements. Since those two are not repeatable (i.e., one-time occurrences), it is scientifically impossible to understand the physical nature of what exactly went on. This is no different than anything else in science -- if you can't repeat it, you can't understand it. A good example is when your vehicle does something (i.e., a sound, a vibration) that can't be repeated when you take it into the shop -- it's very difficult for the mechanic to fix what he/she can't observe.

What is Truth?

It is important for a Christian to understand not only what is science asking but also how science answers the question, "what is truth?"

Often, science is regarded as a complete and irrefutable body of knowledge and therefore, is equated with "truth". However, in reality, science is made up of an incomplete and porous body of knowledge outside of which there is no known boundary. What that means is that while science does have a huge and increasing body of knowledge (e.g., you can, in relative safety, fly on an airline at 35,000 feet and be relatively sure that you will land at your destination), there is no way to know for certain how much science doesn't know nor even what all the questions are.

Science is and will always be, by its very nature, an incomplete body of knowledge. If there would ever be a time that science knows everything (in theology, we refer to this as omniscience), then science would cease to exist since science exists at the interface between the known and unknown in the physical world.

I should also mention that if a mode of thought (i.e. science) says that it wants to pursue only naturalistic (i.e., non-supernatural) explanations of this world, I personally don't have a problem with that. In my work, I don't usually ask myself what are the theological implications for using a part made out of C65500 silicon bronze rather than 302/304 passivated stainless steel. That's not to say that there are never theological implications with engineering decisions. When I am selecting an encapsulating material for use in manufacturing, I certainly look at and compare the health risks shown on the MSDSs (Material Safety Data Sheet) of various materials and consider the potential health implications to workers who might be handling those materials (in light of the 5th commandment to not hurt or harm my neighbor). However, making an evaluation and decision based only upon the physicial properties and aspects shown on a technical data sheet is not necessarly morally wrong (what determines the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an action from God's point of view also requires us getting into acting out of Christian faith -- but I will leave that for another time). And if there is a mode of thought that only wants consider the physical and natural aspects of this world, per se, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. However, when science does not humbly and inherently acknowledge that, by definition, its knowledge is and will never be complete or when science insists that there is nothing apart from the measurable and detectable physical world, it steps into an area outside of its own self-defined mode of thought. At best, all science can do is offer no comment to such questions. (Here we could also get into the history of science and its relationship to theology, but I will leave that for another discussion)

A few illustrations to make my point. Notice, in the third illustration that the question before the U.S. District Court (Kitzmiller v. Dover) was not "is intelligent design true?". Rather, the question was "is intelligent design science?" Those are two completely different questions. The first would answer "what is objectively true and certain?" The second would be "does ID fit into the same mode of thought and action as science defines itself?"

• from Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition (1999), National Academy of Sciences, p27
  "Terms Used in Describing the Nature of Science. Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow."
  
  
• from Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998), National Academy of Sciences, page 30
  "Second, the statements of science should never be accepted as "final truth." Instead, over time they generally form a sequence of increasingly more accurate statements. Nevertheless, in the case of heliocentricism as in evolution, the data are so convincing that the accuracy of the theory is no longer questioned in science."
  
  
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
  KITZMILLER v. DOVER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
  Case No. 04cv2688, MEMORANDUM OPINION, December 20, 2005
  
  "After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science." p 64
  
  "To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true “scientific” alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science." p89