Friday, June 17, 2016

Question: "Old earth vs. young earth—what are the core issues in the debate?"



Question: "Old earth vs. young earth—what are the core issues in the debate?"
Answer: Both old earth creationism and young earth creationism seek to solve the apparent conflict between science and the Bible in regard to the age of the earth. What is the apparent conflict? If the book of Genesis is interpreted strictly literally, it seems to indicate that the earth and the universe are around 6,000 years old. In contrast, various scientific dating methods place the age of the earth around 4.5 billion years and the age of the universe around 14.6 billion years.

 The options to solve the apparent conflict are as follows: the Bible is wrong, the Bible is being interpreted incorrectly, or the scientific data is being interpreted incorrectly.

 Neither old earth creationism nor young earth creationism teaches that the Bible is wrong. Generally speaking, both old earth and young earth creationists believe in the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of God’s Word. What differs between these approaches is one’s view on what the Bible is, in fact, saying. It’s a matter of interpretation.

 Old earth creationists believe a strictly literal approach is not the correct way to interpret the early chapters of Genesis. They view Genesis 1–2 as being primarily symbolic and/or poetic. Young earth creationists interpret Genesis 1–2 as a literal, historical account of how God created the universe. Young earth creationists question why, if the rest of Genesis is historical, should the first two chapters be interpreted differently? Old earth creationists question why, if the Bible uses symbolism in many other books, can’t metaphor be used in Genesis?

 Young earth creationists contend that the scientific data supporting a billions-of-years-old universe is being interpreted incorrectly. They view old-earth arguments developed by naturalistic scientists as primarily being a defense for Darwinian evolution. They contend that the dating methods are flawed, at best, and are implemented by scientists with bias, presuppositions, and agendas. Old earth creationists view the scientific dating methods as being reasonably accurate and therefore accept that the earth and the universe are truly old. Also, a great number of old earth creationists reject Darwinian evolution.

 So, in the old earth vs. young earth debate, who is correct? As a ministry, GotQuestions.org definitely leans toward the young earth perspective. We believe that Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are meant to be read literally, and young earth creationism is what a literal reading of those chapters presents. At the same time, we do not view old earth creationism as heresy. We are not going to question the faith or motives of our brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with us on this issue. Ultimately, one can hold to views other than young earth creationism and still have an accurate understanding of the core doctrines of the Christian faith.

 As we interpret it, the Bible indicates that the earth is relatively young. According to secular scientists and those who accept an old-earth reading of Scripture, the earth is very old. Since neither viewpoint can be explicitly proved, we choose to side with a plain/literal interpretation of the Bible.


Question: "Is there any evidence for the Bible's view of a young earth?"
Answer: There is a profusion of evidence for the Bible’s view of a young earth. However, the old-earth perspective has held a monopoly in the public schools, in the major academic centers, and in the popular media for generations. It is no wonder then that most scientists share the old-earth perspective. It’s all they were taught growing up in school. It’s all they learned at the universities where they got their degrees. It’s what most of their colleagues profess. But there are dissenters among the scientific community, and their numbers are growing. Why? Because more and more scientists are confronting a growing body of evidence which challenges the old-earth paradigm.

This is not to say that everyone who examines these evidences will reject the old-earth perspective. Some who have pondered these evidences regard them as anomalous, yet-to-be-explained phenomena. Some believe they don’t stand up under close scrutiny. Some view them as deliberate misrepresentations of the facts by religious zealots.

There is no doubt that religious zealots have a tendency to distort facts when it suits their purposes. old-earth zealots have the same tendency when their careers and reputations are on the line. It’s human nature. It is also true that some of the young-earth evidences which have been proposed over the years have not withstood close scrutiny. But many others have, and the fact remains that a growing number of professionally trained scientists—experts in their fields—are accepting a young-earth perspective as being at least scientifically plausible, if not compelling. Here are a few of the relevant evidences for consideration:

Young Earth Evidence: Continental Erosion and Fossil Remains. The continents are eroding at such a rate that, if not for tectonic uplift, meteoric dusting and volcanic influx, they would erode flat (Mt. Everest and all) in less than 25 million years. At this rate, high-altitude, million-year-old fossils should have long since eroded away. And yet they remain. The implication is that these fossils are not millions of years old. If this were true, the entire geologic column would need serious revision (see our article on the Geologic Column).

Young Earth Evidence: Subterranean Fluid Pressure. When a drill rig strikes oil, the oil sometimes gushes out in huge fountains. This is because the oil is often under huge amounts of pressure from the sheer weight of the rock sitting on top of it. Other subterranean fluids kept under pressure include natural gas and water. The problem is, the rock above many pressurized subterranean fluid deposits is relatively permeable. The pressure should escape in less than 100,000 years. Yet these deposits remain highly pressurized. Once again, because of the supposed antiquity of these deposits and their location throughout the geologic column, this observation calls into question some of the interpretations which have led to the formulation of the column.

Young Earth Evidence: Global Cooling. In the 19th century, the renowned physicist and inventor Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) was the first to point out that if the earth began in a white-hot molten state, it would have cooled to its current temperature billions of years sooner than the 4.6 billion years accepted today. Since then, old-earth advocates have pointed out that radioactive decay within the earth would greatly slow down the cooling process. Young-earth advocates respond that, even given liberal assumptions concerning the amount of heat produced by radioactive decay, the earth would still cool to its current temperature much sooner than old-earth advocates allow.

Young Earth Evidence: Lunar Recession. The moon is slowly moving farther away from the earth. This has to do with the fact that the earth’s spin is slowing down due to tidal friction and other factors. Lunar recession was first observed by Edmund Halley in the late 1600s (the same Edmund Halley who is credited with being the first to predict the 76-year orbit of the famous comet which bears his name). Given the rate of lunar recession today, the fact that it has gradually accelerated over time, and several other factors, physicists have determined that the earth-moon system could not have existed beyond 1.2 billion years (you can review the mathematical equations involved at http://www.creationscience.com/). This is 3.4 billion years less time than old-earth advocates are willing to accept. Furthermore, the closer the moon gets to the earth, the greater its influence on our tides. We can’t go too far back in time before we would all drown twice a day.

Young Earth Evidence: Helium diffusion from Precambrian Zircons. Helium is produced within the earth by the radioactive decay of certain unstable elements (uranium and thorium being two such elements). Some of this decay takes place inside of crystals known as “zircons.” Helium diffuses from these zircons at known rates depending upon depth and temperature. Scientists have discovered that, in zircons where a billion years of uranium decay has allegedly taken place, too much helium remains—way too much helium. It appears as if the helium hasn’t had enough time to diffuse out of the crystals. This observation has a couple of implications.

First, this observation may overturn a key assumption underlying radiometric dating (the most common old-earth dating technique). Scientists believe that a billion years of uranium decay has taken place within these zircons because they make certain assumptions about the unobservable past (see our article on Radiometric Dating). One of these assumptions is that radioactive decay has remained constant throughout the unobservable past. Scientists have been able to vary decay rates in the lab, but most don’t believe that it actually happens in nature. However, if billions years of uranium decay has taken place so quickly that the helium produced hasn’t had enough time to escape the zircons, this may be strong evidence that radioactive decay rates were greatly accelerated in the unobservable past.

Second, because the zircons came from Precambrian rocks below the geologic column, currently accepted old-earth interpretations of the geologic column may need serious revision (once again, see our article on the Geologic Column). These and numerous other scientific evidences for a young-earth theory give credence to the Bible’s account of the creation of the earth and universe as found in Genesis.
Question: "How does the Cambrian Explosion fit within the framework of young-earth creationism?"

Answer: The earth's crust consists of many layers of fossil-bearing rock. It was once believed that the lowest layer of fossil-bearing rock was the Cambrian and that Precambrian rock was totally devoid of any fossil remains. It is now known that there are actually some, though very few, primitive fossils in the Precambrian. But it is not until the Cambrian layer that we find a sudden burst of life.

The “Cambrian Explosion” refers to the sudden appearance of most of the world's known animal phyla, all within a very brief period of geological time (by the conventional standard). The sudden appearance of so many of the major innovations to the basic structures of known animal forms has always been somewhat problematic for Darwin’s theory of gradual innovation. But how does the Cambrian Explosion fit with the framework of young-earth creationism?

The old-earth position is that the vast majority of earth's strata represent long epochs of time, typically millions of years, and that the fossils found in the lower layers evolved before those found in the upper layers. The young-earth position is that nearly all of the strata from the Cambrian period on up were deposited in relatively quick succession as the result of a catastrophic global deluge and subsequent natural disasters, and that the order in which fossils are found is a result of hydrological mechanics (hydrologic sorting for example, the phenomenon whereby dirt spontaneously settles into layers after being kicked up in water). 

The conspicuous presence of so many of the world's known animal phyla in the bottom layer does not prove or disprove one position or the other. So young-earth proponents rely on other physical evidences to make their case, including poly-strata fossils (that is, fossils that pass through multiple strata), misplaced and missing fossils and strata, the lack of erosion between strata, the deficiency of bioturbation, undisturbed bedding planes, the limited extent of unconformities, soft-sediment deformation, and well-preserved surface features between layers, etc.

There are, for example, plenty of out-of-place fossils. Sometimes rock layers containing what are thought to be older fossils are found above rock layers that contain what are thought to be younger fossils (the younger fossils should be on top). The solution for Darwinian geologists is to argue that the strata containing the misplaced fossils were shuffled out of order by some natural geological process. They then reorganize the discrepant fossils and rock layers logically using the assumed order in which the creatures were supposed to have evolved; i.e., this organism was supposed to have evolved before this one, so it goes here on bottom, while this organism was supposed to have evolved after this one so it goes here on top, etc. Darwinian biologists then turn around and use the evolutionary progression organized by the geologists as evidence for the evolutionary progression that the geologists used to organize the strata. This is, of course, circular reasoning.

To summarize, each viewpoint, whether young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism, or Darwinian evolution, struggles somewhat with explaining the Cambrian Explosion. In no sense, though, is the Cambrian Explosion contradictory with young-earth creationism. In fact, young-earth creationism perhaps has the clearest explanation for the Cambrian Explosion, that of the global deluge. Whatever the case, the evidence for the Cambrian Explosion is no reason to doubt the veracity of Genesis’ account of creation (Genesis chapters 1-2, 6-8).


http://www.gotquestions.org/

 Copyright Policy: While all of the material on the GotQuestions.org website is under copyright protection, the only purpose of our copyright is to make sure people copy it right. As long as you always clearly reference and/or link to www.gotquestions.org as the source of the material, you have our permission to copy, print, and distribute our material.
The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues. It is believed that this constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law.
 In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Federal law allows citizens to reproduce, distribute and exhibit portions of copyrighted motion pictures, video taped or video discs, without authorization of the copyright holder. This infringement of copyright is called “Fair Use”, and is allowed for purposes of criticism, news, reporting, teaching, and parody. This articles is written, and any image and video (includes music used in the video) in this article are used, in compliance with this law: Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 107.
on

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please feel free to make civil comment. Divergent views encouraged,

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)