The Age of the Universe: Does it Matter?

Transcription

1 The Age of the Universe: Does it Matter? By Kyle D. Rapinchuk For two thousand years, the church has debated the issue of the age of the earth, but rarely has a conclusion on this topic been as controversial as it is today. In an age where science seems determined to rule out God and explain the origins of the universe through naturalistic evolution, it is perhaps not surprising that the age of the earth would become a significant issue. The question has not only become an issue of origins, therefore, but also a heated debate within the church about the age of the earth and its implications. In many evangelical circles, for example, Young Earth Creationism has become a foundational doctrine. Rejection of Young Earth Creationism, for many, is in reality a rejection of the gospel. Leading Young Earth Creation advocate Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis, although not calling it a salvation issue, has argued that Young Earth Creationism is clearly taught in Scripture and therefore the age of the universe does matter a great deal. He writes, Scripture plainly teaches that salvation is conditioned upon faith in Christ, with no requirement for what one believes about the age of the earth or universe. Now when I say this, people sometimes assume then that it does not matter what a Christian believes concerning the supposed millions of years age for the earth and universe. Even though it is not a salvation issue, the belief that earth history spans millions of years has very severe consequences. Ham goes on to argue that any view that does not accept a young earth puts man s fallible ideas in authority over God s Word. He goes on to say that a Christian s belief in millions of years totally contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture. Ham concludes that Young Earth Creationism is clearly taught in Scripture and therefore any rejection of Young Earth Creationism is a rejection of the authority of Scripture and instead gives primacy to science. 1

2 Although appreciating that Ham and Answers in Genesis have worked hard to understand and defend their position, and agreeing with Ham that the authority of Scripture is an important issue, I am disappointed in the way that he and others immediately discount any position other than YEC as caving to science and disregarding the authority of Scripture. We all wish that the creation account was clear and unambiguous, but merely repeating that Young Earth Creationism is clearly taught does not make it so. It would seem rather that an assessment of the merits of many views show that there is biblical evidence to support those positions, and in a way that does not deny the authority of the Bible. If, as I hope to demonstrate briefly in this session, other views can come to separate conclusions on the meaning of the biblical text while still affirming the authority of Scripture and employing thoughtful hermeneutical approaches, then we may come to a very different answer regarding the question: Does the age of the universe matter? My hope is briefly to lay out the basics of a number of different approaches to Genesis 1-2 that can all still maintain and embrace the authority of Scripture and employ faithful hermeneutical approaches, yet come to vastly different understandings of the meaning of Genesis 1-2 and the age of the universe. Since my purpose is merely to show some of the merits of various positions, I will limit myself to a brief summary of the view and some of its proposed strengths, not a discussion of the possible weaknesses of each view, though it should be stated that there are legitimate possible weaknesses that could be raised for each of the positions considered. After surveying these various positions, I will propose a few final conclusions for approaching this issue. Various views of creation fall into three categories with respect to the age of the universe: young earth, old earth, and atemporal. The young earth view is well-documented and popular in American evangelicalism. The young earth view reads Genesis 1 as six, literal 24 hour days that 2

3 describe historically the beginning of the whole created order. Day one, then, is first day of the universe s existence and we can therefore date the universe on the basis of genealogies to around years old, taking into account possible selectivity in the genealogical records. The most significant strengths of this view are its compatibility with the rest of Genesis as an historical narrative and the more common 24-hour reading for the word day. Young earth creationism argues that the apparent conflict between science and faith is the result of faulty interpretation of the scientific record; they instead propose a flood geology, an explanation that says that the earth appears so much older on account of the catastrophic effects of a worldwide flood. The most common old earth views are day age theory, the divine creative fiat, and evolutionary creationism. Day age theory argues that each of the seven days of the creation account are in fact long ages, thereby reconciling the seven day sequence of Genesis 1:1-2:4 with the common scientific consensus for an old earth. Although the Hebrew word yom often means 24 hours, day age theorists note that the word yom is not only used differently throughout Scripture, but in fact has different meanings in this passage. For example, day in 1:5 refers to the period of light, typically understood to be twelve hours. Second, God rested on the seventh day, but unlike the other days, this day does not have evening and morning and therefore could be read to be a continuing age into the present. Third, 2:4 says in the day (yom, singular) that God made the heavens and the earth, thereby referring to six days as one. If this passage itself is not consistent on the length of time designated by day, there is warrant for reading it as a long age. Additionally, Genesis 2:9 says that God caused the trees to grow up, indicating a process of growth rather than creation in a moment. 3

4 Similar to the day age view, the divine creative fiat view sees long ages in the creation account. However, these periods of time are not the days themselves, but rather the periods between God s new creative activity. In this view, each day begins with and God said, indicating a new decree by God that ushers in a new age of creation. Thus, the day can be a 24 hour day, but long periods of time would span the intervals between the days. Both the day age theory and divine creative fiat views claim support not only from scientific evidence of such new creative activity (e.g. the Cambrian explosion), but also from additional Scriptures like Psalm 102:25 that speak of the heavens wearing out like a garment, which may suggest an old earth. The most controversial old earth position, at least among evangelical Christians, is evolutionary creationism (also called theistic evolution or a fully gifted creation view). By virtue of its name, the view primarily explains its understanding of the relationship of Scripture (God created, therefore theistic of theistic evolution or creationism of evolutionary creationism) to science (evolution). There are various readings of the creation account in Genesis 1-2 that could be squared with evolutionary creationism, but I have chosen to associate it with the reading of Genesis 1-2 as a competing ANE myth because this has, at least in my reading and experience, been its most common counterpart. In this reading, Genesis 1-2 does not aim to present an historical account of how God created, but rather is a competing ANE myth that explain that YHWH, not the other gods of the ANE, was the creator. It is focused therefore more on the who than the how of creation. The term myth, unfortunately, has come for many to mean something untrue; consequently, some have turned to the term theological history to better explain the genre of Genesis 1-2. Theological history, like myth, teaches truth, but does so in a non-literal fashion. Thus, Genesis 1-2 is true insofar as it teaches who created (YHWH) and that the creation was good. The primary strength of this view is that it takes seriously the parallels between this 4

5 account and other ANE creation stories; it also makes sense of the seeming fairy tale quality of the text. If one continues to chapter 3, one could say: a man named human and a woman named mother of all living are tempted by a talking serpent to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil leading to their removal from a garden so that they cannot eat of the Tree of Life and live forever. Although other questions need to be answered, it is not immediately clear why this is not at least a possible reading of the text. The final three views fall into the category of atemporal since they propose readings of Genesis 1-2 that do determine the age of the universe on the basis of the text. The first of these views is the preparation of the land view (also called historical creationism by John Sailhamer in his book Genesis Unbound). This view argues that heavens and earth in Genesis 1:1 is a merism denoting everything. Once everything is created in verse one, verse two begins by describing the state of the promised land (alternately in some portrayals the known world ). Genesis 1:3-2:4, then, describe seven days in which God prepares the land for human habitation. In chapter 2, the text focuses more narrowly on the garden in which Adam and Eve are placed. In favor of this view is its distinction between the Hebrew words bara (to create) and asa (to make, prepare, or set in order), nuances lost in English translations but fairly consistently differentiated in the Hebrew. This view also helps explain why day two is not called good (since separating the waters does not yet benefit human habitation) but day three is twice called good (since dry land and vegetation both benefit humanity). The literary framework argues that the six days of Genesis 1 are not intended to indicate a chronological sequence of events, but are rather a literary framework which the author uses to teach us about God s creative activity. The first three days are days of forming, while the next three are days of filling. The author does not care to tell us how and when God created, only to 5

6 demonstrate by his literary framework that God created everything. This view helps explain the apparent contradiction in chapter two where man seems to precede plants and animals. It also fits with the statement in Genesis 1:2 that the earth was without form (days 1-3 then correspond to forming) and empty (days 4-6 correspond with filling). Finally, the cosmic temple view argues that focus on a material creation misses the point of the text. Other views have approached Genesis 1-2 as though they were talking about a material creation. However, John Walton has argued that the ancient world in which this was written saw existence as functional rather than material. That means that a thing came to exist not when it had all its materials, but only when it had a function. Genesis 1-2, then, speak of God giving a function to the material creation (which had been created beforehand). The focus then shifts to God giving purpose to the elements of the cosmos as he prepares his cosmic temple. This view, better than many others, takes into account an ANE understanding of cosmology, worldview, and language. It may also be supported in Acts 17:24-25 when Paul says that God does not dwell in a temple made by human hands, perhaps suggesting that the reason is because he dwells in a temple he had prepared by his own hands. Certainly there are weaknesses proposed for each of these views, but this quick summary is meant to suggest that simply writing off old earth views as abandoning biblical authority and submitting to science is an unfair, and largely untrue, accusation. What, then, should we conclude from such a survey? I propose the following. 1. The Bible is more concerned with who made creation and why than exactly how and when. We would do well to emphasize, along with the Apostles Creed, that I believe in God the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth. This does not mean that dialogue is unfruitful. In fact, I mean to suggest that we should be in dialogue, but we should be in 6

7 dialogue with the recognition that we hold the important things in common. As the old adage goes, In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity. That God created, that He created it good, and that human beings are in His image are the essentials. How and when he created are issues of liberty. 2. There is room for disagreement among Christians who believe in the total truthfulness of Scripture. We may disagree with someone s interpretation of Genesis 1-2, but disagreeing does not require that we call into question their belief in the truthfulness and/or authority of Scripture. 3. Since there is room for disagreement among those who trust in the authority of Scripture, one s view of creation should not be a litmus test for Christian faithfulness, or even a doctrine that divides Christian fellowship. There are certain issues that are closed-handed and others that are open-handed; or one may speak of primary versus secondary issues of theology. Too often the western evangelical church has fought and divided over openhanded, secondary issues of theology such as how and when God created, all the while ignoring the more significant failures in our churches to teach primary doctrine like the Trinity and hypostatic union. We need to reassess our priorities. 4. We should avoid two temptations. The first temptation is to accept a view simply because it will make your church happy. This is the snare of the safe. The second temptation is to assume a position is correct merely because most practitioners of science believe it. Science is not infallible, but neither is it wholly un-useful (if one needs convincing, I recommend John Lennox s book Seven Days that Divide the World and his discussion of Copernicus and the Catholic church). 7

8 5. When all the facts are rightly understood, there will be no final conflict between Scripture and natural science. God is the author of creation through the agency of the Word/Son. God is also the author of the Scriptures through the agency of man. When we no longer see through a mirror dimly, when see him face to face, I believe we will find that His Word and His creation have no conflict. As Christians, we should not fear science. We should rather be among the best in scientific fields. So returning to the question of whether the age of the universe matters, I say both no and yes. No, in this it is not a salvation issue. We should have room for disagreement, and we share a common gospel purpose that does not depend upon our views of the age of the universe. However, I also says yes, it does matter, in that we as Christians should take seriously our commitment to the Scriptures and engage in conversation with our culture. In an age where many disregard the need for God on the basis of so-called scientific evidence for naturalistic evolution, it matters greatly from an apologetic standpoint that we know what we believe and why. Moreover, all truth is God s truth, wherever it is found. We should be seekers of truth, and though the age of the universe is not a salvation issue, we should care about the truth, and use every means necessary to come to as solid a position as we can on the truth. I conclude, then, with the words of Wayne Grudem: The possibility must be left open that God has chosen not to give us enough information to come to a clear decision on this question [the age of the earth and length of days in Genesis], and the real test of faithfulness to him may be the degree to which we can act charitably toward those who in good conscience and full belief in God s Word hold to a different position on this matter (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 297). He goes on to encourage evangelical scientists and theologians who fall in both 8

9 the 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 (308). I would give one final proposal for how we might go about this kind of task. In The Magician s Nephew, C. S. Lewis describes the creation of Narnia is beautiful language. What follows is just a small selection: In the darkness something was happening at last. A voice had begun to sing. It was very far away and Digory found it hard to decide from what direction it was coming. Sometimes it seemed to come from all directions at once. Sometimes he almost thought it was coming out of the earth beneath them. Its lower notes were deep enough to be the voice of the earth herself. There were no words. There was hardly even a tune. But it was, beyond comparison, the most beautiful noise he had ever heard. It was so beautiful he could hardly bear it. The horse seemed to like it too; he gave the sort of whinney a horse would give if, after years of being a cab-horse, it found itself back in the old field where it had played as a foal, and saw someone whom it remembered and loved coming across the field to bring it a lump of sugar Then two wonders happened at the same moment. One was that the voice was suddenly joined by other voices; more voices than you could possibly count. They were in harmony with it, but far higher up the scale: cold, tingling, silvery voices. The second wonder was that the blackness overhead, all at once, was blazing with stars. They didn t come out gently one by one, as they do on a summer evening. One moment there had been nothing but darkness; next moment a thousand, thousand points of light leaped out single stars, constellations, and planets, brighter and bigger than any in our world. There were no clouds. The new stars and the new voices began at exactly the same time. If you had seen and heard it, as Digory did, you would have felt quite certain that it was the stars themselves which were singing, and that it was the First Voice, the deep one, which had made them appear and made them sing In our attempts to reconcile Genesis 1-2 with science or to merely historicize it as a scientific fact itself, we have often missed the wonder and beauty of In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Perhaps, as a result, we have already missed the point of the text and lost the power of the moment for those who do not believe in God. But Lewis does not stop there. He goes on to describe that while the moment was beautiful for the children and the animals and the cabby, it was loathsome to Queen Jadis and Uncle Andrew. In fact, Lewis writes, For what you see and hear depends a good deal on where you are standing: it also depends on what sort of person you are. This is a profound statement 9

10 and has helpful implications for our current situation. The various views described earlier are certainly different points of view each of us may stand, as Lewis says, in different places, and therefore we see the event differently. But what should not be an issue is what sort of person we are. If we as Christians were to more faithfully celebrate the beauty and wonder and majesty of the reality THAT God created and WHY He did so, as people who are increasingly shaped by the character of this creator God in whose image we are created, then we might have a far more profound influence on the culture around us, and the issues of science and faith, while not resolved in the details, will be resolved in the way that matters most: In the beginning, God created. 10

11 A Survey of Various Views on Genesis 1-2 and Creation View Literal, 6-day creationism Day Age Creative Fiat Theistic Evolution, Evolutionary Creationism Preparation of the Promised Land (Historical Creationism) Literary Framework Cosmic Temple Summary of Reading of Gen 1-2 The days of Genesis are literal, 24-hour days that depict historically the start of the universe Each day of creation is actually a long age. Each day can be understood as 24 hours, but there is an indefinite period of time between these days, which are representative of God speaking into each new age. Competing ANE myth, telling that YHWH created, not how In Gen 1:1 God creates everything (except humans) and then prepares the Promised Land for human habitation Three days of forming parallel three days of filling, not a chronological account Functional ontology; the creation begins to exist when God gives it a function, which he does in the creation week. He is preparing the universe as his cosmic temple in which to dwell. Position on Age of Universe; Relation to Science Young ( ,000 years); Creation science suggests traditional scientific dating is flawed, posits flood geology Old; exact age determined by science since Scripture does not say Old; exact age determined by science since Scripture does not say Old; God has fully gifted his creation so that evolutionary process would unfold as God intended Atemporal, but usually old; the gap between v.1 and v.2 is indeterminate, so science would help determine age Atemporal, but usually old; the text only gives us a literary summary, not a precise timeline Atemporal, but usually old; the text does not tell us how long the universe existed before God prepared it as His temple Resources to Consult Answers in Genesis Hugh Ross, More Than a Theory: A Matter of Days See discussion in Lennox, 7 Days that Divide the World Denis Lamoureux, Evolutionary Creation Sailhamer, Genesis Unbound Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1-15 John Walton, Lost World of Gen 1 11