The Age of Creation, How Old Is the Earth?

Questions about the earth’s age have been around for a long time, but the debate we see now is relatively recent. Up until at least the 17th century the age of the earth was a relatively settled matter with little variation in opinion. In the 17th century bible scholar James Ussher estimated the earth originated in 4004 B.C. based on biblical study. Although this date is usually dismissed today, it was largely accepted by the scientific community in Ussher’s day. Interestingly, in one of Isaac Newton’s published works he openly mocks anyone who would reject this dating. As one academic described it,

“From an educated man in the seventeenth or even eighteenth century, any suggestion that the human past extended back further than 6,000 years was a vain and foolish expectation.” (Renfrew, prof. Archaeology, University of Southhampton).

Going all the way back to Augustine, we read:

“…from Adam to the flood there were 2,262 years according to the calculation data in… the Scriptures” (The City of God, book 15, chapter 8)

So what happened that led to the commonly accepted view (i.e., young earth) being replaced by the contemporary view? The debate over the earth’s age erupted in the 19th century, in the years after Darwin’s theory of macro evolution. Darwin’s theory of evolution was compelling to many, but it needed more time in order for it to be plausible. In the following century scientific discoveries like carbon dating, the speed of light, and an expanding universe appeared to provide the time that Darwin’s paradigm for evolutionary progress needed to be viable.

What about the Bible?

As a result of these influences, many people felt free to simply reject what the Bible says about creation and God. Others sought to match the modern interpretation of scientific data with their own interpretation of Scripture. Many tried to resolve the tension by trying to fit their view of Scripture into the mold of scientific thought. Some began to question the prevailing scientific thought about the age of the earth based on Scripture. The result of all these factors has been a major paradigm shift in how people think about the age of the earth. Outside the church, the most common view on the age of the earth is that it is several billion years old. Within the church, attempts have been made to resolve the apparent discrepancy between science and Scripture.

There are essentially 6 views on the age of the earth that need to be evaluated.

Atheistic Evolution

The first view we need to evaluate is what we will call atheistic evolution. We don’t need to spend much time here because this explanation of the age of the earth contradicts Scripture. This theory of origins is popular, but as we will see it is simply not a plausible explanation. This theory seeks to explain the state of creation as it exists now apart from the existence of a living God. Most versions of atheistic evolution that we encounter in our day can be traced back to Darwinian “macro-evolution.” Darwin postulated that various species exist because of an evolutionary process described as natural selection. Darwin’s paradigm supposes that over billions of years the biological variations we see in nature evolved.

How should we evaluate this view of the age of the earth? Theologically, any view that denies God’s place in creation and governance should be rejected as patently false. Biblically, any view that doesn’t take seriously the account of creation in Genesis shouldn’t be taken seriously. Philosophically, atheistic evolution fails at the most basic level to explains why there’s something not nothing. Biologically, atheistic evolution has yet to deal with the amazing complexity required by biological change. Geologically, atheistic evolution has yet to be confirmed by the fossil record… the missing link is still missing.

Conclusion: Atheistic evolution views that the earth is billions of years old, but the paradigm that it uses to verify this claim cannot be taken seriously because it denies God’s revelation.

Theistic Evolution

A second view that we need to evaluate is what we will call theistic evolution. This theory is also popular because it asserts everything from the last theory but tries to make room for God. It seeks to explain the origin and the age of the earth in a way that joins Theism and Darwinism. This theory says God didn’t create each individual living organism but guided the process by which they evolved

What is this view based upon? Theistic Evolution resembles historic naturalistic Deism… “there’s a God but He is not all that involved.” The view is summed up by the phrase “God of the gaps” because it leaves room for God where science is uncertain. It seeks naturalistic answers to everything and only acknowledges a role for God where science allows.

What are we to make of this view? It has the same problems that Atheistic Evolution has, and it adds extra problems with its low view of God. It does not take special revelation seriously, especially concerning the creation of mankind in God’s image. Despite its talk about God, this view of the origins and age of the earth falls woefully short of biblical truth.

The fundamental difference between a biblical view of creation and theistic evolution lies here: the driving force that brings about change and the development of new species in all evolutionary schemes is randomness. Without the random mutation of organisms you do not have evolution in the modern scientific sense at all. Random mutation is the underlying force that brings about eventual development from the simplest to the most complex life forms. But the driving force in the development of new organisms according to Scripture is God’s intelligent design. (Grudem, 276)

The Gap Theory

A third view that we need to evaluate is what is commonly called the “Gap Theory.” This view holds that there is a large gap of time between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 that spans billions of years. This proposed gap means that the original creation of Gen 1:1 is as old as modern science claims it to be. However, in between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 Satan rebelled against God and that shattered the original creation. Thus, from Gen 1:2 all the way to the end of the chapter we read about God repairing the original creation.

Where does this view of the age of the earth come from? This is a recent and rare view first popularized among evangelicals in the original Scofield Reference Bible. There are many bible believing, gospel loving, genuine Christians who hold to this view of creation. However, it does not originate from careful exegesis of the text, but a desire to resolve a perceived problem between science and Scripture.

How should we evaluate this view? Let’s just say that there are gaps in the gap theory… this view suffers from a complete lack of biblical evidence. It tries to make an elaborate proposal based on white spaces in the text—its an argument from silence. It also fails to do justice to the fact that Adam’s sin the brought about the curse on creation not Satan. In the final evaluation, theologian Douglas Kelly rightly evaluates the gap theory:

“It is not a fair and straightforward reading of Scripture, nor does it successfully reconcile the biblical picture of origins with ‘scientific’ naturalism. The ‘gap’ theory should serve as a model of what Christians should not do in their legitimate desire to speak Biblical truth into a world held in the tight grip of humanistic premises” (Kelly, Creation and Change, 120)

Literary Framework

A fourth view we need to evaluate is what is often called the “Literary Framework View.” This view holds that the first three chapters of Genesis are a literary/poetic tool that shouldn’t be taken literally. It treats the first chapter of Genesis as a literary device that is meant to be interpreted figuratively. Thus, according to this perspective, Moses uses the 7 days of creation to poetically describe what took place over billions of years.

There are many bible believing, gospel loving, genuine Christians who hold to this view of creation. This view is appealing to many because it takes the Bible seriously even though it interprets these verses figuratively, and it leaves a lot of leeway for science to explain what took place in creation.

How should we evaluate this view? On its surface, this view certainly sounds plausible, but upon closer evaluation it fails to provide any evidence. There is no way to determine what parts of Genesis 1-3 are figurative and what parts are literal… Beginning? Man? Fall? Additionally, there is nothing in the Hebrew text to indicate that this passage is poetic and should be interpreted figuratively.

Hebrew poetry had certain characteristics, and they are not found in the first chapter of Genesis… The man who says, ‘I believe that Genesis purports to be a historical account, but I do not believe that account’ is a far better interpreter of the Bible than the man who says, ‘I believe that Genesis is profoundly true, but it is poetry.’” (Edward Young, 18-19)

Day-Age

A fifth view that we need to evaluate is what we will call the “Day Age View.” This view holds that each day in Genesis 1 represents a long period of time—each day is actually an age. It is sometimes referred to as progressive creationism because it views creation as a long progression. This view is held by many evangelicals and scholars because it affirms that God is directly involved in creation but it allows for the billions of years that modern science stipulates is necessary.

What are some of the positives of this view? Scripture does occasionally refers to periods of time with analogous language, such as Daniel’s weeks which are years. Additionally, this view does not relegate God to a passive bystander in creation… He does it all, but just takes longer. Finally, this view is very attractive to those persuaded by modern scientific interpretations of the age of the earth.

How should we evaluate this view? A few details that are important to consider:

• The Hebrew word for day (yom) with a numerical adjective consistently refers to a day—even 2:4 can be a 24 hr day if you take the verb “made” to be referring to the completion of creation on the final day (vv. 1-3).

• Each day in Genesis 1 is specifically described as a period of time made up of a morning and an evening (1:14-19).

• The 7th day is a major problem for this view because Adam lived through day 6 into day seven—the sabbath.

• Even if the days are “ages” the sequence would have to be altered to match modern science (fish after plants, etc.)

In the final assessment, this view simply does not provide ample biblical data or explanatory power to be persuasive.

Young Earth

The 6th view that we need to evaluate is what we will call “The Young Earth View.” This view hold that the days of Genesis 1 should be interpreted literally as actual 24 hour periods of time. It is also known as creationism or 6 day creation because it holds that all things were made in a period of 6 days. This view says that the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old, and is the ONLY view that bases its age solely on Scripture

What are some of the challenges to this view? It should be noted that there are NO textual or theological challenges—there are no arguments against it that began with exegetical considerations. The reason why so many reject this view is based on science not on Scripture, or any theological principle. The 3 major scientific challenges are the geological record, the speed of light, and the expansion of the universe.

How would we answer the objections to 6 day creationism?

• Geological Record - no view of the origin of the planet can avoid the problems that exist with interpreting the fossil and geological record; additionally, the affects of the Flood impact how you view the geological data.

• Speed of Light - possible considerations include 1) creation with the appearance of age; 2) the speed of light may have been variable; 3) light was initially more rapidly moving to match the initial expansion of universe.

• Expansion of Universe - There must have been rapid initial expansion, in fact, no one can prove the rate of expansion has always been constant.

Unless the universe is eternal, the beginning couldn’t conform to the data that we can presently observe. More importantly, the testimony of Scripture must hold the final vote in our position, and Exodus 20:11 describes creation taking place in six literal days:

For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Conclusion:

We do not know the earth’s exact age, but we know it was created in six literal days, which means it’s pretty young. A young earth view may not exhaustively answer every scientific question, but it makes the most sense of the biblical text. Any scientist who claims that they can answer every question about the origin of the universe is being dishonest. It is impossible for us to apply our observational and interpretive techniques to this creation because we weren’t there. Not to mention, the laws of science which we observe now could not have been in operation before they were created. Thus what took place in creation cannot be completely explained by even the best science.

There is another reason to come to this conclusion, which we haven’t yet considered—the creation of man. Whatever your view on the age of the earth, you have to view the creation of man as a special act of God. You absolutely cannot view God’s creation of human beings as figurative, progressive, or evolutionary. The text clearly teaches that God created human beings by an act of special creation from the dust and a rib. Faithfulness to the text REQUIRES a literal Adam and Eve who came from direct and special creation. This view of the creation of mankind is not only necessary from the text, it is necessary in our theology.

If Adam was not the literal first man, you will lose a lot more than a literal view of Genesis chapter one. If Adam isn’t the head of the human race, there isn’t one human race; we evolved separately and simultaneously. More significantly, if the literal Adam is not the head of the human race then the Last Adam cannot be the Savior of all men.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many (Rom 5:12-15).

Since we must accept the literal view of Adam, it only makes sense that we view the rest of Genesis 1 as literal. Given all that we have seen, even though there are godly Christians who differ on this issue, the young earth view is the preferable explanation for the age of the earth because it is based on the best interpretation of Genesis 1-3.