| Home Page | Young Universe Fallacy | |
Christian Apologetic
|
Many creationists with some science training insist that the evidence for an ancient universe is inconclusive. They argue that there is a considerable body of scientific material which support a young age universe. Indeed, Walter Brown, Henry Morris, and Edward Blick claim anywhere form fifty to eighty separate scientific evidence for a universe and earth only thousands of years old. In this claim of scientific support for their beliefs, these young-earth creationists convince many whose scientific education and biblical training are not sufficient to evaluate the evidence. All eighty of these “evidences” of a young age, when investigated closely, involved one of these four problems:
Interestingly, these erroneous arguments when corrected provide some of the strongest evidences for an old universe and an old earth. Some of these arguments are presented below. The continents are eroding too rapidly. Erosion measurements show that the continents are lowered by wind, rain, etc., at a rate of about 0.05 millimeters per year. At this rate, the continents (averaging about 800 meters in elevation) would disappear in about 16 million years. Therefore, since continents do still have considerable elevation, the earth must be much younger than 16 million years. The argument looks at only one side of the equation. The fallacy of the argument lies in its failure to acknowledge that lava flows, delta and continental shelf buildup (from eroded material), coral reef buildup, and uplift from colliding tectonic plates occur at rates roughly equivalent to, and, in many cases exceeding, the erosion rate. The Himalayas, for example, are the result of tectonic uplift rising at a rate of about 15 millimeters per year. The San Gabriel Mountains just north of Los Angeles are rising at an average rate of 9 millimeters per year. Lava flows have increased the land area of the state of Hawaii by several square miles since its admission into the United States in 1959. The scientific record agrees with Genesis 1:2,9-10 in
stating that shortly after the earth’s formation, the planet’s surface was
more fully covered with water than at present.
Through the agency of volcanic eruptions, plate tectonic collisions and
other continent building activities, the surface of the Earth has progressed
from 100 percent oceans and no continents to about 70 percent oceans and 30
percent continents. The reason
continental land area is not increasing today is that the continents are being
eroded down at roughly the same rate volcanoes, plate tectonics, etc., are
building them up. Indeed, the
amount of continental land mass added every year as a result of volcanoes and
tectonics is roughly independent of the total continental land area.
But the amount of land mass eroded away is strongly dependent on the
total continental land area. Therefore,
continental land area continues to increase until there is enough land area that
the rate of erosion equals the rate of build up.
The time required for the continents to build up from 0 percent of the
global surface area to the current ratio of 30 percent continents and 70 percent
ocean area is about 2 billion years. Thus,
continental erosion is an argument for an old rather than for a young earth. Dust on the MoonBefore satellites were available to take direct measurements, geophysicist Hans Pettersson estimated the influx to Earth of material from meteors by measuring the quantity of nickel in the material passing through dust filters on top of Hawaii’s Mount Mauna Loa. Since nickel is much rarer in terrestrial dust than in meteorites, it was assumed that the great majority of nickel came from space. Knowing that meteoritic material is composed of 2.5 percent nickel, he used the amount of nickel collected to calculate that about 14 million tons of space dust settles on the earth every day. Now, when this is applied to a 4 billion year old moon, this would add up to 145 feet of space dust on the moon. Since we now know that there is only about 2.5 inches of surface dust on the moon, this would imply an age for the moon not of billions of years but only of millions of years – 6 million years to be exact. Petterson warned of possible large errors and assumptions, and young universe creationists to whittle the 6 million years down to about 10,000 years. As Pettersson was aware, his ground based
measurements were measuring not only dust falling from outer space, but also
material thrown into the atmosphere by wind erosion and volcanic eruptions.
About a decade after the original calculations were published, direct
measurements by satellites of cosmic dust inflow were possible, and instead of a
14 million ton annual accumulation on the earth, only 23 thousand tons were
indicated (or 11 thousand tons per year for the moon).
This quantity would translate into 1.2 inches of dust for a moon 4.5
billion years old. When other
sources of inflow and outflow are accounted for (decomposition from ultraviolet
radiation, other sources of erosion, inflow from larger meteorites and comet,
and outflow from asteroid and meteorite impacts large enough to expel debris
away from the reach of the moon’s gravity), then the measured 2.l5 inches of
lunar dust adds up to an age for the lunar surface of 4.25 billion years (a
value in agreement with several other measurements of the moon’s age). Decay of Earth’s Magnetic Field
The earth’s magnetic field has decreased steadily since
measurements were first taken about 150 years ago. Based on the field strength of a typical magnetic star
(certainly exceeding any conceivable value for the Earth), and on the observed
rate of decay, some creationists have calculated that the decay process must
have begun on Earth no more than 10,000 years ago.
Thus, the earth’s age must be no greater than 10,000 years. The problem with this evidence, however, is that the Earth’s magnetic field does not undergo steady decay, but rather follows a “sinusoidal” pattern. That is, the field decays, then builds up, then decays, builds up, etc. The proof for this pattern of the Earth’s magnetic field strength lies in ancient geologic strata found throughout the world. The rocks reveal that the earth’s field reverses its polarity roughly every half million years. Each reversal processes lasts about 10,000 years. The Sun Burns by Gravitational Contractions and Thus Must be
Young
Prior
to the discovery of nuclear energy, the only explanation astronomers had for the
enormous energy output of the sun and other stars was gravitational contraction.
Given the diameter of and energy output of the sun, we can calculate that
its maximum age would be about 100 millions years if it were generating energy
only by this process. When some
measurements of the sun were made, a very slight reduction in the size of the
sun seemed to promote this assertion. However,
we now know that if a body of the sun’s mass were experiencing gravitational
contraction, the temperature, pressure and heat would inevitably ignite nuclear
fusion. Furthermore, various
measurements done over many years by many groups of scientists all guarantees
that the sun is burning by nuclear fusion and that this fusion has been
preceding for about 5 billion years. Additional
experimental proof for this assertion come from several dozen exploded hydrogen
bombs and the results of hundreds of experiments performed in the world’s
greatest university laboratories. Finally,
more refined measurements by Barry LaBonte and Robert Howard done from 1974
through 1981 indicate that the solar radius remained constant to within one part
per 9,000. Therefore, the sun in
reality was not contracting at all! Galaxy clusters are not dispersed more widely
The
crux of this argument is that if the universe were billions of years old, the
random movement of galaxies would have dispersed them sufficiently so that there
would be no galactic clusters. Armed
with measurements of the velocities and masses for all the galaxies in a galaxy
cluster, astronomers can calculate the dispersal time (time it takes for all the
galaxies to leave the cluster (total dispersion), and the relaxation time (time
it takes for the galaxies to assume randomized velocities).
Some creationists point out that when such calculations are made for some
galaxy clusters, the lack of observed galaxy dispersion argues against great age
for the universe – certainly much less than a billion years. The
problem with this evidence is that the calculations for dispersion and
relaxation times assume not only that all the mass within the galaxy clusters is
luminous but also that the galaxies approximate point sources rather than
unfocused sources. However, the
mass of non-luminous matter is indeed greater than the mass of luminous matter,
and galaxies cannot be treated as point sources.
In fact, their diameters are only about an order of magnitude smaller
(that is, about ten times smaller) than the average distances between them in a
typical cluster. Therefore,
calculations of the dispersal times for galaxy clusters are virtually
meaningless. However,
if we look at star clusters rather than galactic clusters, most of their matter
is visible, and the stars can in reality be treated as point sources.
The average distances between them are at least seven orders of magnitude
greater (that is, about 10 million times greater) than their average diameters.
When dispersal and relaxation time calculations are applied to star clusters in
our galaxy, many clusters show their ages to be greater than 2 billion years. Rapid Sedimentation and Peat Deposition Following the
1980 Mount St. Helens Eruption Demonstrate that All Geological Processes are not
Gradual – but Rapid Within
a relatively short time after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, peat layers (the
first stage in the formation of coal) and sedimentary rock already had formed in
the vicinity of the eruption. This
phenomenon seemed to young-earth scientists to challenge the notion that long
ages must elapse prior to the deposition of sedimentary rock and the formation
of coal. Indeed, they concluded
that geological processes in general provide evidences for a young earth and not
for an old one. The
problem however, lies in the assumption that all geological processes either
take place gradually at relatively uniform (i.e., constant) rates or rapidly at
rates pulsed by major catastrophes. The
young earth verses old earth debate is pictured in the context of a battle
between the principles of uniformitarianism against catastrophism, with one
significant twice. Castrophism as
defined by geologists refers to the formation of geologic structures through a
variety of catastrophes occurring at different times. Young earth creationists define catastrophism as the
formation of all Earth’s major geologic structures by a single catastrophic
event – namely, the Genesis flood, occurring during a 10.5 month period 5 –
15,000 years ago. The
use of Mt. St. Helens exemplifies the “either-or” fallacy – that is, an
unfounded dilemma. Geology reflects
by operation of both slow as well as rapid processes at work the same time.
Only gradual processes occurring at relatively fixed rates over many
millions of years can explain some geologic features.
Some examples might be coral reefs, anthracite coal and certain
conglomerate geological layers. In
the case of coral reefs, for example, scientists can measure the daily
accumulation of deposits over millions of years.
From these deposits, they can ascertain certain phenomena such as the
gradual slowing of the earth’s rotation.
Such deposits demonstrate that the earth’s rotation has been slowing at
exactly the same rate over the past 400 million years.
This is an example of uniformitarianism and as evidence that the earth is
hundreds of millions of years old at least. Alternatively,
rapid processes occurring over short periods of time can only explain other
geological formations. Examples of
such processes include lava flows, avalanche scars, asteroid craters, and polar
ice cap shifts. For each of these examples an abundance of evidence exists for
repeated disasters over relatively short periods of time.
Astronomers can calculate, for example, the rate of asteroid impacts and
compare their calculations with the number of these craters observed on Earth as
well as on other astronomical objects such as the Moon, Mercury, Mars, Venus,
and some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn.
The numbers and the observed weather indicate that these craters did not
all occur at the same time but rather by many catastrophes stretched over the
past several billion years. Evidence
of rapid geological processes such as what occurred after the volcanic eruption
at St. Helens, does not prove that every structure in the earth’s crust formed
quickly. Rather, they simply
illustrate that geology is a very complex science revealing both gradual and
rapid processes occurring simultaneously over the entire history of the Earth. Computer Models of the Spiral Structure of Galaxies show
that the Spiral Collapses after two or three Rotations; Therefore, these
Galaxies must be much Younger than Astronomers Claim. We
are able to calculate with marked precision the dynamics of large rotating
systems such as galaxies, planets, and stars.
When Kevin Prendergast made such calculations about 30 years ago, he
ascertained that a large system of stars will establish a spiral structure only
in a few rotations and that after two or three more rotations the structure will
collapse into an ellipsoid. Since
we know that spiral galaxies take only a few hundred million years to rotate,
the existence of a significant number of such galaxies would indicate that the
universe cannot be as old as 15 billion years (although it could be as old as
several hundred million years!). The
young earth creationists then assert that if the universe cannot be older than 2
billion years, then astronomers cannot be trusted in their age calculations
using other methods. However,
this evidence overlooks the continuing research by Prendergast and others.
In the years following his original presentation, he ascertained that
ongoing star formation would counterbalance the tendency toward collapse and
maintain the spiral structure. He
demonstrated that as long as star formation continued at a significant rate
within the spiral galaxy the structure would be stabilized; however, if star
formation ceased, then the spiral structure would collapse within the next two
to three rotations. Prentergast’s
computer models are validated by astronomical observation.
In spherical and ellipsoidal galaxies, astronomers see no ongoing star
formation, whereas in the spiral galaxies such evidence is abundant.
Furthermore, the further away the galaxies (or the further back in time
one looks), the more spiral galaxies are present.
In the vicinity of our galaxy, only about 6% of galaxies are spiral: at a
distance of 4 billion light years (4 billion years ago), 30% of galaxies are
spiral, and at 10 billion light years distance (10 billion years ago), about
half of the galaxies are spiral in structure.
Furthermore,
since spiral galaxies still exist, the universe cannot be any older than about
25 billion years. Because only 6%
of galaxies near our own are spirals, the universe cannot be any younger than 12
billion years. A corroboration of
this conclusion comes from Prendergast’s modeling of collisions among
galaxies. Using data on the
velocity and position of galaxies, astronomers calculate the rate of collisions
and close encounters for any particular galaxy.
In modeling the dynamics of two galaxies passing close by each other,
Prendergast was able to determine in what ways the spiral arms of galaxies are
distorted by close encounters and collisions.
Looking for such distortions in spiral galaxies close to our own,
Prendergast was able to demonstrate from their number and type just how long
such galaxies have existed. The
answer is consistent with the number of spiral galaxies and with observations of
star formation – galaxies have existed for 10 to 15 billion years. Thus, in every way, the spiral structure of galaxies argues
for a universe billions of years old rather than thousands of years. Trails of “Human” Footprints Alongside, and Sometimes
Crossing Over, Trails of Dinosaur Prints Prove that Dinosaurs were Contemporary
with Humans The observation of what appear to be human footprints alongside a great many other prints that were clearly made by dinosaurs has been interpreted by many young-earth creationists as poof that dinosaurs and men lived together. This would seem to imply that dinosaurs were thriving as recently as a few thousand years ago, and would also imply that the geological strata in which the prints were located could not have been deposited tens of millions of years ago, but only within the past few thousand years. Therefore, the dinosaurs and the strata of the earth are not relics from an ancient past but have existed only for about ten thousand years There
are several assumptions that need to be addressed. First, there is the assumption that close proximity indicates
contemporaneous existence. Naturally,
this assumption is false as the Earth’s strata can be disturbed and
redistributed by events occurring at different times – especially in a river
bed like that at Glen Rose, Texas. However,
the most serious assumption is that the footprints that have been identified in
this river basin are human. The
dinosaur prints at this site belong to tridactyls – three-toed carnivorous
dinosaurs The viscosity and
composition of the mud, the weight of the subject, the way the subjects walked,
and the degree of erosion all determine how preserved the footprints will be
over time. Given these variables,
some footprints are more distinctly preserved than others, and the dinosaur
prints in question are small and unclear enough so as to resemble human
footprints. Indications that these
are dinosaur footprints and not human come from the following:
For
these and other reasons, both secular and Christian scholars have concluded that
there is no factual basis for claiming that any of the footprints in question
are human. To their credit, many
young-earth creationists have ceased from using these arguments and removed
books and films about it from circulation. Since a Comet’s Average Lifespan is Only a Couple of Thousand Years, Given the Rather Limited Supply of Comets, their Present Existence Proves the Solar System Cannot be Any Older than a Few Thousand Years Comets
that orbit within the solar system, such as Halley’s comet, are reported to
disintegrate in about two thousand years on the average.
Every time a comet swings by the sun, the heat and light of the sun boil
away another layer from the comet’s mass.
After a few dozen revolutions about the sun, none of the comet remains.
Since comets are observed orbiting the sun, therefore, the solar system
cannot be very old. However,
estimates cited as evidence for the average lifespan of comets date back to the
1970s. At that time no space-based
measurements of comets were available, and what data did exist were weighted
heavily by easy to see comets. These
easiest comets are those that pass closest to the sun and therefore suffer the
most rapid disintegration. Hence,
estimates prior to 1980 of the average life spans for comets have since proven to
be far too low. In
1986, five spacecraft visited Halley’s comet and made the first accurate
measurements of both the mass and the rate of disintegration.
Astronomers determined that Halley’s comet is massive enough to survive
at least another 500 revolutions around the sun.
With observations of Halley’s comet dating back to 240 B.C., and
knowing that it passes the sun every seventh-six years, we can calculate the
approximate minimum lifespan for this comet at 40,000+ years. Halley’s
comet is, however, unusual in that it has such a short period of revolution.
Much more typical are other comets such as Kohoutek, which comes around
the sun every 80,000 years, or Pons-Brooks and Griggs-Mellish, which orbit every
3,000,000 years. Five hundred revolutions for these comets would yield life spans
of 40 million and 1.5 billion years respectively. But,
most comets do not come into the solar system to fall into close proximity with
the Sun. Astronomers observe them
passing by the Sun along parabolic or hyperbolic paths – and objects traveling
along such paths will never return. Technically,
these comets are not even members of our own solar system.
Like the Sun, they orbit the center of the galaxy and like the Sun; they
are repeatedly jostled by the gravitational pull of stars in their vicinity.
Occasionally, such tugs will send them on a near encounter with the Sun.
If they come close enough to the Sun, they will heat up sufficiently to
become visible to astronomers. But
such occurrences are the exception rather than the rule.
The greatest majority of comets never become bright enough to be observed
from the Earth. Given the number of
comets that astronomers do see, it has been estimated the population of comets
in interstellar space must exceed the trillions. Comets
are not about to disappear. They
are made up of the primordial matter of the universe; out of dust, rocks, and
frozen gases that are left over from star formation. They may, like the stars, continue to condense from the huge
gas and dust clouds that are abundant near the sun’s orbital path around the
center of the galaxy. Given the
supply of dust and gases measured to exist around the spiral arms of the galaxy,
and the huge number of stars that have recently formed in our galaxy,
astronomers can look forward to observing comets for many billions of years to
come. ConclusionOther
scientific evidences and arguments for a young universe can also be shown
fallacious. There is just no
scientific argument to suggest that the earth and the Universe were created only
a few short thousand years ago. It
would have to be assumed that the Lord created the Universe with the appearance
of vast age – but this would deny His character as being truthful and without
deceit. Even though there is no
credible scientific evidence to support the notion of a young universe,
creationists still insist they are correct due to their interpretation of
Scripture. This gives them the
appearance of insisting upon a young earth using invalid scientific methods just
to prove their preconceived notions. Naturally,
this is antithetical to the scientific method which insists upon the
investigation of a scientific principle without preconceived notions and being
willing to follow where the evidence lays. Physicist Gerald Aardama of the Institute for Creation
Research, on the other hand, writes off the need for the scientific method but
rather insists upon prejudice by saying, “I don’t care whether the whole
scientific community thinks I’m a fool.”
Unfortunately, such is the case. The
alternative question is whether any in the established scientific community has
ever become convinced of a young earth through the arguments of the young earth
zealots. When asked this question,
John Morris answered, “No.” Apparently,
there have not been any conversions of credible scientists to the young earth
camp through their arguments – simply because their preconceived notions and
prejudicial science cannot withstand impartial examination.
Driven largely by a fear of naturalistic evolution, the line in the same
still rests for many on the issue of the age – of the Universe, the Earth, and
of mankind. The perspective of many
in the young earth movement is that to believe in an ancient universe is to
believe in evolution, that to believe in Biblical truth is to disbelieve and
distrust science. But
the real tragedy of this whole young-universe movement is that it leads some
secularists to impugn not only their science, but also the entire Christian
Church. Many secularists equate the
Christian Church with this young-earth movement, and in so doing come to the
mistaken conclusion that the Christian Church is a community of believers in
clearly unscientific, unproven, preconceived scientific heresy.
Christians become labeled as being dupes unable to accept the facts of
modern science because it disproves their antiquated religion.
Furthermore, secular scientists are unable to embrace Christianity if
they come to believe that in doing so, they will have to discard the clear
scientifically proven evidence from multiple disciplines all agreeing upon the
ancient nature of our Universe. Driven
by this false “either-or” dilemma of having to chose between Christian faith
or scientific knowledge, most scientists discard Christianity out of hand,
unwilling to seriously consider a belief system that will discard what has so
clearly been shown to be true. Alternatively,
there are many scientists living within the Christian community who are forced
to deny physical reality in order to keep their Christian faith.
It is sad to contemplate the tension that must exist in the life of so
many scientists who have to divorce their faith from their scientific knowledge
– or otherwise face the tragic realization that one of them must be false.
But as we have seen and what a large portion of this Web site attempts to
address is that it is plausible to believe in an ancient Universe while
believing in the inerrant Word of God – the two do not need to be mutually
exclusive. Acceptance of Physical RealityThe
history of Christianity is filled with sad tales of the conflict between faith
and science. Whenever new
discoveries cause a shift in some people’s worldview, this change meets with
considerable resistance. History
shows that many fail to adjust when they should, while others adjust too quickly
and compromise their religious faith foolishly.
The scientifically proven understanding of the ancient age of the
universe provides an example as to how science can help us refine our
understanding of God and how He has fashioned the Universe of incredible time
periods just for us. Alternatively,
the example of Freudian psychology provides another example as to how religion
can disprove false science. But
perhaps the most famous conflict of all arose 400 years ago with the trial of
Galileo. Prelates of the Roman
Catholic Church refused to look through Galileo’s telescope, for if they had
they would have seen for themselves the phases and motions of the solar system,
planets and moons. They were so
fearful that a sun-centered solar system might be proven and threaten their
misunderstanding of Scripture – similar to the young earth misunderstanding of
today’s prelates. They believed
that a sun-centered universe would contradict Scripture and weaken the authority
of the church. Anti-Physicalism, Young-Earth Creationism, and Post-ModernismIt
is a curious thing of human nature that we struggle so hard not to believe in
the existence of God – not even necessarily for our own glorification – but
often for a child-like desire not to have to recognize authority over our lives.
One of the earliest threats to the young Church was the emergence of
Gnosticism – a philosophy that posited that the physical part of themselves
and of the universe about them was unreal.
Thus, the evidence that might be engendered from scientific inquiry into
the outside world was meaningless since the outside world was itself
meaningless. Individuals could not be held accountable for their treatment
of the physical world or for their physical actions within it as the physical
world lacked reality. Furthermore,
they did not have to recognize an all-powerful God who allowed humans to
experience pain and suffering since pain and suffering belonged to the physical
world which was by definition not real. A
similar belief system held that people could be divided into three groups
according to their spiritual state. At
the top were the ones who possessed privileged spiritual knowledge, and could be
recognized by a prescribed spirituality and manifesting certain behaviors.
Naturally, the proponents of this philosophy generally belongs to this
top category whereas others lacking this understanding were inherently
spiritually inferior. The second class of people had faith in God but fell short of
a certain spirituality and did not possess this “special knowledge.”
Last were the great hordes of people who clung to their material world
views and were subject to matter. Members
of this last group were condemned inevitably to destruction. These
anti-physical beliefs are often inherently gratifying as much of our lives is
physically, emotionally, and spiritually painful. The effects of pain, sin, suffering, and death are difficult
to face. Integrating these harsh
realities with a loving, omniscient all-powerful God can be difficult.
But if these physical manifestations are not real, then there is no need
to be concerned about this problem. We
can reinterpret painful events and feel somehow superior to those people who
have not graduated to this understanding. Anti-physical
belief systems provide a convenient antidote for treating the unwanted pains and
insecurities of life by understanding God in spiritual terms only with no
physical reality. Despite
the appeal these philosophies obviously had in early Christian though, they
clearly contradict the Scriptural message of equality before God, all believers
belonging to one body, all parts of the body having equal authority and
importance to the whole. In
Christianity, there is no inherent superiority of any member; the pastor or
leader of a Church has no inherent spiritual value more than the least believer
(although he does have much more responsibility before God and more authority in
His Church). The legitimate fears
we humans have concerning fear, pain, suffering and death are meant to turn us
toward God for mercy and compassion, and not to turn away from physical reality.
In Christianity, the “heavens declare the glory of God” – without
the reality of the “heavens” they could declare nothing. Young
earth creationists represent the newest manifestation of his philosophy that
denies physical reality and posits a “special knowledge.”
Young earth creationists deny the physical reality of the universe
astronomers observe, measure, and demonstrate through many independent means.
When astronomers demonstrate that the light from the Andromeda galaxy
takes 2 million years to get here, young earth creationists claim “special
knowledge” that the universe is only about ten thousand years old.
Astronomers must be wrong because Andromeda cannot reside where research
say it does – not because of scientific reasons, but because it just can’t
based upon their special knowledge. Supernova
explosions that occurred in the Great Magellanic Cloud in 1987 must be denied.
Since that supernova occurred 80,000 light years away, and since young
earth creationists insist the universe cannot be older than 10,000 years, what
we are seeing, they suggest, is a detailed history of an event that never
happened. Even
events occurring now in the physical world are denied according to this special
knowledge. Many young earth
creationists claim that star formation could not be occurring in present reality
since God miracle of creation is over and took place only during the appropriate
Genesis creation day. Like the
Roman Catholic clerics who refused to look through a telescope to examine
physical reality, these creationists refuse to look for themselves at the
various stages of star formation that can be clearly observed in our present
physical reality. This refusal to
believe in physical reality is not limited to astronomical events.
Creationists insist the fossils to not represent ancient remains, not are
coal, oil, gas, and top soil the remains of thousands of previous generations of
life. The stratified layers of the
earth’s crust to not testify of rocks subjected to past pressures, erosions
and stresses; nor do tree rings, coral banding, and ice layers represent real
years past; nor does the erosion of craters and mountains on the earth and on
the planets and moons in the heavens result from ongoing natural processes.
Rather, these must be illusions, and our “knowing” anything apart
from what is present in the Bible (or at least their interpretation of what is
present in the Bible) cannot be trusted. Thus,
virtually all science has led mankind astray.
Scientific research means little for these people lack their “special
understanding” of physical reality that is available only through the biblical
filter – the “right” biblical filter.
Evangelical or fundamentalist scientists who disagree with young earth
creationists can be ignored for those who disagree with them have by definition
succumbed to “interpreting the Bible through the eye-glasses of science.”
They have rejected the “biblical knowledge” that could have set them
straight and turn them from leading themselves and others into apostasy.
Christians who believe in an ancient universe that is compatible with the
Genesis account are frequently barred from speaking at Churches, Christian
schools and universities. Rather,
they are treated as having little of any value (i.e., “truthful”) to say,
and only young earth creationists deserve the pulpit.
The
Way Back Proper
understanding of the physical universe and its relationship to Biblical reality
is important for several reasons – maybe the most important of which is that
it does not require scientists to ignore the physical reality they observe every
day. Investigators into the
Christian Church are not immediately discouraged when they see young earth
creationists holding onto their “special knowledge” and clearly denying
physical reality. Underlying all
the so-called links between old earth views and godlessness is the feat the
scientific research may some day discover some fact about the universe, earth,
or life that clearly contradicts the Bible’s message.
They are worried nature may tell us something – if not long ages for
the cosmos and life, something else – that inescapably disagrees with what God
has said in His Word. As
long as this possibility exists in the believer’s mind it will hamper
experiencing the freedom and fearlessness God makes available to us by His
Spirit. “God has not given us a
spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.”
(2 Timothy 1:7). A sound mind accepts physical reality. However,
if we take the Bible literally and seriously, there is no basis for this fear.
God created the universe; there can never be a contradiction between what
H has made and what He has spoken through inspired writers of Scripture.
The testimony of both will always agree, and we will never need to back
away from facts that appear as threats. We
need only study and investigate further, checking the accuracy of the physical
facts, and the accuracy of our interpretation of what the Bible is saying and
how we understand this knowledge. The
facts will always be on the side of Truth for God is Truth and God created the
universe. However, if we refuse to
interpret our understanding of Scripture in the light of scientific inquiry,
then we become as the prelates of Galileo’s time, clearly discarding physical
reality and refusing to examine our understanding of what the Bible says.
Christianity becomes much stronger when we have a proper understanding of
what God has said through His Scriptures as well as through His Cosmos, and is
weakened when we stubbornly refuse to even consider physical reality. Indeed,
science is now validating the existence of God (but cannot absolutely
“prove” that existence), and showing for the first time in history that a
proper understanding of the Cosmos will support rather than deny this existence.
We need to embrace reality as demonstrated through God’s creation
rather than denying this message in a stubborn attempt to deny physical reality.
Truth will set us free – and vastly improve our message to the world. |