Young Earth, anyone?

Theology
1
Young Earth, anyone?

This balanced visual represents the ongoing discussion between Young Earth Creationism (YE) and the concept of an ancient universe. By splitting the scene between a biblical desert landscape and a modern observatory under a starry sky, the image symbolizes both perspectives—faith-based interpretations of Genesis and scientific inquiry into the universe’s age. The faint cross and telescope highlight the dialogue between faith and science, inviting contemplation on how believers might reconcile scripture with scientific understanding.

#YoungEarthCreationism #FaithAndScience #CreationDebate #BiblicalInterpretation #AncientUniverse

DALL·E 2024-11-01 14.34.17 - A balanced, realistic image symbolizing the debate over Young Earth Creationism (YE) vs. an ancient universe. The scene features a split image_ on one
DALL·E 2024-11-01 14.34.17 - A balanced, realistic image symbolizing the debate over Young Earth Creationism (YE) vs. an ancient universe. The scene features a split image_ on one1792×1024 684 KB

Every Christian forum needs a thread about this too - right? :smiley:

I first encountered YE when I was a complete newbie with Campus Crusade in 1970. A staff member named Frank explained why radiocarbon dating was wrong and the earth was really only a few thousand years old. I was dumbstruck anyone could believe this (and Frank didn’t insist I must).

My perspective is:

  1. Genesis isn’t ntended to be a scientific treatise and, moreover, I don’t see that it requires a YE. (Yes, I know all about Bishop Ussher’s calculations).

  2. Literally every scientific discipline points to a vastly old universe and earth. YE “science” is a truly desperate attempt to prop up dubious YE theology. (Not as desperate as Flat Earth “science,” I’ll admit. :roll_eyes:)

  3. God created an orderly universe that operates according to mathematical principles. God blessed humans with minds and senses capable of investigating, analyzing and to a large extent understanding the creation. If we can’t trust our minds and senses, then what sort of God do we have - a cosmic deceiver? The teleological argument - basically “The heavens proclaim the glory of God” - is one of the strongest proofs of God, one that gets stronger with each new scientific advance. In YE theology, however, the heavens don’t really proclaim the glory of God - they are just a big deception.

There is one YE argument that is actually kind of interesting. The idea is that when you read a novel, everything in it exists from the moment you start reading. The cities and everything in them are old from page one, the characters are adults with pasts you know nothing about, and so and so forth - the world of the novel is whatever the author has created, and you the reader just step into this world on page one. Similarly, the theory goes, God created humans who stepped into the world of an established creation like the readers of a novel. There is no way to prove or disprove this theory since it doesn’t require all scientific disciplines to be wrong; science would show the universe to be billions of years old even if God authored it at the same time he created humans.

Not convincing to me, but impossible to disprove and a way to cling to a YE position if you think Genesis requires this.

2

I personally don’t think Earth is more than 10,000 years old. Everything was created fully grown. Nothing was an egg first or seed. Including trees. Science would say count the rings for the age of the tree when in fact when God created the first tree it was only seconds old, but not according to the rings in modern science. Check this out: The Genesis Genealogies - Reasons to Believe

3

The author of the article is, interestingly, not a literalist. According to the article, the genealogies in Genesis are “telescoped” and the creation of humans can reasonably be pushed back some tens of thousands of years.

When Genesis was written, the Pyramids were more than 1000 years old, Gobekli Tepe was at least 8000 years old, and the beautiful cave art at Lascaux was around 20,000 years old. Regardless of whether the genealogies in Genesis are telescoped, I believe they are entirely fanciful, not intended to be understood as history, and have no bearing at all on the age of the earth.

If someone wants to give primacy to the Genesis account, interpret it as requiring a YE, and attempt to explain away the mountain of science to the contrary, that’s fine. I see no reason to treat Genesis seriously at all, except for the spiritual truths it communicates.

(FWIW, the author of the article, Dr. John Millam, who has sterling scientific credentials, is in fact an Old Earth Creationist; he debates Young Earth Creationists.)