Age of the Earth, Part 3: The Rocks Cry Out

In my previous post, I made my case for why we can and should look to the earth itself in order to come to definitive conclusions about earth history. We are about to do just that, but before we begin to review what I consider to be the most compelling evidence, I'd like to cover a few points.

First, I acknowledge that it is difficult to discuss the age of the earth without considering the age of the universe itself. Furthermore, many people interested in this debate find the astronomical evidence for an ancient universe to sufficiently call Young-Earth Creationism into question. I have studied the evidence for an old universe, including the substantial evidence for the Big Bang, as well as the inference of age given incredibly distant starlight. I find YEC arguments against these evidences inadequate, but I have always been more personally interested and compelled by the geological component of earth history. Whether it's my engineering background or my love of nature, I don't know, but I am genuinely intrigued by the history that lies beneath our feet in the form of geological formations. The fact that we can literally touch and see the evidence ourselves brings the argument down from incomprehensible heights, giving us something tangible for us to observe and discuss. So, I will not be discussing universal evidence, but will be focusing on geology.

Secondly, YEC's have attacked the science of radiometric dating since the inception of their movement. They contend that these dating techniques are unreliable due to built-in, unfounded assumptions. Personally, I consider the principle of radiometric dating to be generally reliable, and I find YEC's assessment of it to be misinformed and narrow. However, radiometric dating is complex and controversial, and it can distract from simpler, more significant evidences for an old earth. Subsequently, I will not be discussing radiometric dating.

And lastly, I find it helpful to distill the debate over earth's geologic formations down to the main claim made by each party. YEC's contend that the vast majority of fossil-bearing layers of rock throughout the earth are the result of the biblical flood of Noah's day. Their opposition (which consists of the general scientific community and yours truly) contends that these rock layers were laid down over extremely long periods of time called ages, just as you would see at your local museum of natural history.

I can't overemphasize how important it is to understand the debate over the age of the earth in these terms. So, let me explore this further:

YEC's believe in a 6-day, 24-hour creation week. From their perspective, ALL of earth history consists of these 6 literal days, plus the time that has passed since then, much of which is recorded in the Bible. As a result, this limits their earth history timescale to between 6,000 and 10,000 years, depending on time elapsed during the Genesis genealogies. Because no one disputes the existence of the geological formations that constitute the earths' crust, which include miles of fossil bearing layers, YEC's necessarily believe that these layers (called strata) were laid down in that same timescale.

Okay, that's simple enough. But, allow me to beat a dying horse. Everyone agrees that 6,000-10,000 years is not nearly enough time for normal processes that we observe today to create the miles-thick, fossil-bearing strata beneath us. Two well-known structures help to illustrate this point. Stonehenge in England and the Great Pyramids at Geza were constructed over 4000 years ago. The landscapes surrounding these structures have remained virtually unchanged for thousands of years (meaning that thousands of feet of distinct rock layers have not formed over the structures, instead, they are still visible on the surface today). So, we can safely assume that landscapes don’t usually change dramatically over several thousand years. However, if you were to travel into the earth below Stonehenge or the Great Pyramids, you would find those same rock layers, complete with fossils and mineral deposits, that we find everywhere else in the world. The question becomes, when and how did these rock layers form?

Because of the time constraint that YEC's place on earth history, they necessarily believe that the vast majority of the fossil-bearing geological strata (including those beneath Stonehenge and the Pyramids) were deposited in a global flood described in Genesis. Additionally, they necessarily believe that Stonehenge and the Great Pyramids (along with every structure on the face of the earth) were built after the global flood, because of all the geological strata that lay beneath them. On the other hand, the scientific community asserts that these strata accumulated over a long period of earth history (billions of years). This is really the crux of the whole debate, and it is extremely important to understand it. I'll lay it out one last time:

• YEC's assert that fossil-bearing geological strata were generally deposited during the year of the flood of Noah. 

• The scientific community asserts that fossil-bearing geological strata were deposited over extremely long periods of time.

If YEC's are right, we should see evidence that suggests that these rock layers were laid down during the year of Noah’s flood. If the scientific community is right, we should see evidence that suggests that these rock layers were laid down over an extremely long period of time. It really is that simple. These rocks layers really do hold the answer for us.

Given that this is really what our debate is all about, the task of anyone wishing to discredit YEC is greatly simplified. It is by no means necessary to prove that the earth is billions of years old. It is only necessary to prove that there are geologic features that could not have been created in the past 10,000 years or less.

In my next post, we will finally consider some of these features of the fascinating geological formations under our noses. I invite you to decide whether or not you think they developed according to YEC timescale or not.

James

Age of the Earth, Part 2: A Lesson from History

In Part One of my Age of the Earth series, my goal was to demonstrate that a large majority of even conservative bible scholars do not believe that Genesis definitively teaches one perspective on earth history.  In my opinion, advocates of both Young Earth Creations (YEC) and Old Earth Creationism (OEC) have grossly overstated any scriptural support for their view.  In the process, both camps have twisted and turned scripture in order present the "biblical case" for their particular perspective.

Consider, for a moment, that maybe the opening chapters of the bible are not intended to communicate stringent scientific details of earth history.  There are thousands of discussions on this topic both online and in theological texts, and as I did in Part One, I have no plans to rehash the arguments of learned scholars.  But, it is important to note that virtually all scholars of a myriad of persuasions would agree that the primary concern of Genesis chapters 1 & 2 is to establish who God is in relation to His creation (and us).  When we understand the text in this way, it suddenly becomes clear why the logic breaks down when attempting to marry the six days of the creation week with any one view (literal six day view; progressive creationism; gap theory, etc.).  Instead of exploring individual inconsistencies between views of earth history and various biblical interpretations, I want to take a look at an historical example that sheds welcomed light on this discussion.

Nicolaus Copernicus was a 16th century astronomer who first formulated a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology, suggesting that the Earth revolved around the Sun.  Up until that time, the world held to geocentrism, the view that the earth is at the center of universe. While you and I don't consider heliocentrism controversial, Martin Luther had a different opinion.  In Luther's TableBook (Tischreden), he wrote:

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

While it's certain that the Church's oppostion to Copernicus has been overstated, the fact remains that his proposition was by no means eagerly accepted.  First of all, heliocentrism is far fram intuitive.  The Sun appears to move as we remain stationary (this is why we still refer to the sun rising/setting, although we know this isn't the case).  Beyond that, the Church appeared to have scripture on its side.  The bible seems to communicate both the mobility of the sun and the stability of the earth quite clearly.  Consider a number of verses (there are many more):

Joshua 10:12-13
Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.

1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.

Psalms 18:15
Then the channels of the sea were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bare, at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.

Psalms 104:5
Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken.

Job 9:6
who shakes the earth from its place, and its pillars tremble.

1 Samuel 2:8
He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and on them he has set the world.

As Luther noted in his quote, it is quite difficult to understand the account of the sun standing still in Joshua 10 from a heliocentric viewpoint.  Furthermore, there are many verses which speak of the immobility of the earth on its foundations or pillars.  In this era of modern astronomy, we understand these verses to be figurative or simply speaking from a human perspective.  However, it cannot be denied that, if we were to use the bible as our primary source in an astronomical debate, geocentrism would be the clear winner.

I don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence, but it's so very important to let this sink in.  Why don't we hear pastors or theologians demand that we "let the bible speak plainly" on the issue of heliocentrism?  Why don't we have well-funded organizations established for the sole purpose of upholding geocentrism, the clear biblical view?  It is NOT because theologians suddenly decided to interpret the many geocentric passages as figurative based on careful hermeneutics.  Rather, it is because science has conclusively proven heliocentrism.  As a result, the Church revisited these passages and altered its interpretation.

You see, the bible is not the best source for developing a correct view of astronomy.  Though it may speak of the earth, sun, moon, and stars, we cannot attain a detailed or accurate understanding of astronomy from scripture.  Instead, we must look to the earth, sun, moon, and stars to establish our astronomical views.  I would hope you agree that this approach is in no way unbiblical.

Let me pause briefly to acknowledge that the YEC movement resents any comparison between their view and geocentrism.  They've written their fare share of rebuttals to this accusation.  I admit that the issues are more complex, both in terms of science and scripture, but it is an extremely helpful lesson from history.  And, my intention is not to compare YEC with geocentrism.  Instead, I want to apply the principle the Church learned about astronomy to the debate over earth history.

That principle is this:  If the bible does not intend to be authoritative about a certain subject, it is advisable to rely upon extra-biblical sources to come to conclusions about that subject.  In some cases, we may even be forced to reinterpret scripture as it relates to a particular subject if the extra-biblical sources are irrefutable.  Every reasonable Christian agrees that this principle applies to astronomy.  I contend that it applies to earth history, also.  In order to develop an accurate perspective of earth history, we must look at the amazingly detailed history the earth has provided us.  And that's surprisingly easy.  It's right under our nose.

In my next post, I will begin to present what I feel to be the most straightforward and conclusive evidence concerning the age of the earth.  It is my opinion that any unbiased reader will see that the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible. 

James