- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostFree Stuff Fridays
- Next Post »How Could God Command Holy War?
Why Does the Universe Look So Old?
- 06/19/10
- 111
As you know I’m at Ligonier Ministries’ annual conference this week. I was going to give you some thoughts on the conference today but maybe I’ll do that another time. Today Al Mohler spoke on an exceedingly difficult topic—why does the universe look so old? And I think he did an exceptional job of providing an answer that affirms a young earth, 24-hour, 6-day view of creation while also maintaining theological and intellectual credibility. I thought I’d share my notes with you (and I’ll endeavor to let you know when the talk is available online).
Mohler began by saying that there are really only two options for us to follow when we seek an answer: either the world is, indeed, old or the world looks old but is not as old as it appears. He began by reading Genesis 1 and, having done so, affirmed that a straightforward reading of the text tells us of 24-hour days, 6 real days of creation and one real day of rest. And, indeed, this was the overwhelming, untroubled consensus of the church until the 19th century. However, since then four great challenges have arisen:
- The discovery of the geological record
- The emergence of Darwin’s theory of evolution
- The discovery of ancient near-eastern parallels to the biblical account
- The development of higher criticism and new approaches to the Bible
When we ask why the universe looks so old, we have to keep each of these challenges in mind. But first we need to ask just how old the universe appears to look. This span of time has grown exponentially since people first began to ask the question so that the age of the earth has gotten older and older. Currently the consensus (such that it is) for the age of the earth is that it is roughly 4.5 billion years old while the universe is 13.5 billion years old.
Mohler then asked this: what is the urgency of this question? The answer is that there is great urgency in adequately addressing this question. There are some recent developments that indicate why this is so. The controversy concerning Bruce Waltke is just one example—Waltke said recently that unless we embrace evolution, evangelicalism will be reduced to the status of a cult. Meanwhile, we are constantly faced with supposed facts that science presents a challenge that must be embraced by the church. The current mental environment in which we live is an environment shaped by the intellectual assumption that the world is very old. To speak in confrontation to that environment comes at a significant cost. Even greater urgency is pressed upon us by the new atheism.
Mohler presented four major options available to us when we think about the age of the earth and the interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis.
The traditional 24-hour calendar day view. This is the most straightforward reading of the text and affirms that the Bible teaches a sequential pattern of 24-hour days.
The day-age view. In this view what is argued is that the Hebrew word for “day” need not always refer to a 24-hour calendar day but might refer to an indefinite and presumably long period of time. Such days are overlapping and not entirely distinct.
The framework theory. This theory leaps over the question of the length of the days saying that this is only a literary framework and that the early chapters of Genesis represent a literary way of discussing a scientific reality. We are not to trouble ourselves about the length of time or the order and sequence of the days, but rather are to see that this is God providentially ordering creation for his glory.
The literary theory. Here we take the first eleven chapters of Genesis as literary, understanding that the Creation story is merely myth, a story as understood by ancient Hebrews.
We must note that only the first of these options necessitates a young earth. All of the others allow for, even if they do not require, a very old earth.
The literary theory has to be rejected out-of-hand since it otherwise contradicts inerrancy. We cannot hold to a robust theory of biblical inerrancy and interpret the chapters in this way.
The framework theory is held by some prominent evangelicals but it is one of the least defensible positions when we realize that it is based not just on a long period of time but that the sequence does not matter. It is simply not credible that God gave us a text with such rich detail and sequential development so we might only learn about his providential direction.
The day-age theory involves far fewer entanglements but still involves important issues related to theology and exegesis.
Mohler proceeded to argue for the theological necessity of understanding a young earth and 24-hour calendar days. He presented two great issues that arise when we allow for a day-age theory or any other old-earth understanding of creation.
The first issue concerns the integrity of Scripture. He conceded that many of those who hold to a day-age view are seeking to believe it without doing violence to the inerrancy of Scripture. And yet there are many issues that must be addressed. What is sorely lacking in the evangelical movement today is a consideration of the theological cost of such a view. This entire conversation is either missing or marginalized in the church today. The exegetical issues are real and the exegetical evidence based on a Reformation understanding of Scripture leads to a natural understanding of 24-hour days in creation. Mohler would allow that it might be possible that he is over-reading the text in this regard. For this reason we must hear the warnings of those who hold to an older view of the universe since it is possible that we may be creating an intellectual problem that is not necessary. And yet he simply finds that the exegetical cost and the theological cost is just too high.
An old-earth review raises at least two important issues. First, it raises the issue of the historicity of Adam. Paul bases his understanding of human sinfulness and Adam’s headship over the human race on a historical Adam and a historical Fall. An old earth understanding has serious complications because the old earth is not merely understood to be old but also through its age telling a story. The story it is telling is of billions of years of creation before the arrival of Adam. How then can it account for a historical Adam? An old earth understanding requires an arbitrary intervention of God in suddenly creating Adam and depositing him in the world. This presents problems both in Genesis and Romans.
The second question it raises regards the Fall. We understand from Genesis 3 and the entire narrative of Scripture that what we know in the world today as catastrophe, as natural disaster, as pain, death, violence, destruction, predation—that all of these are results of the Fall. We end up with enormous problems if we try to interpret a historical fall in an old-earth rendering. This is most clear when it comes to Adam’s sin. Was it true that, as Paul argues, when sin came, death came? Keep in mind that if the earth is old, and we determine it is old because of the scientific data, it also claims that long before the emergence of Adam there were all the effects of sin that are biblically attributed to the Fall. No Christian reading of the Scripture alone would ever come to this kind of conclusion. And once you come to such a conclusion it is very difficult to reconcile with the Bible. If the animosity between the lion and the lamb predates the Fall, what joy or purpose is there in saying that they will be reconciled in the consummation?
The avoidance of this question about the age of the universe will come at the cost of our own credibility. But disaster ensues when the book of natural revelation is used to trump the book of special revelation. We would not be having this discussion today if these questions were not being posed to us by those who assume that general revelation is providing to us compelling evidence that forces us to reconstruct our understanding of the biblical text, that the assured results of science are forcing us to rethink what the Bible seems to say. Great caution is in order when we begin to cede to science. The assured results of science—what do they tell us about a virgin birth? About a resurrection? About sexual orientation? Are we going to submit special revelation to what science says in all of these areas? The end of this process is theological disaster.
When it comes to the confrontation of evolutionary theory and the gospel we have a head-on collision. It is our responsibility to give an answer to this question of why the universe looks old, but the most natural understanding comes to this: the universe looks old because the Creator made it whole. When he made Adam, Adam was not a fetus but a man. By our understanding this would have required time. But for God it did not. He put Adam in the garden, which was not merely seeds, but a fertile, mature garden. God creates and makes things whole. And secondly, it looks old because it bears the effects of sin, the flood, catastrophe. Creation is groaning and in its groaning it looks old and worn, giving us empirical evidence of the reality of sin.
In the end the conclusive answer to this question is known only to God. This is where we are left; and it is a safe place to be.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (111)
On of the great ironies of the discussion about Genesis is that we are really talking about competing miracles.
Genesis says that God directly intervened, and miraculously made something from nothing, thereby making everything contingent on Himself, and Himself reliant on nothing He didn’t make. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Period.
The Naturalistic account says that something happened, and everything was made, and because of the alchemical addition of time and the far-more suspiciously metaphysical element “chance”, order arose from chaos both on the macro level and at the obscurely-microscopic level of the building blocks of life. But this miracle doesn’t require us to obey.
That is always and ultimately the rub.
I like to think of the earth, the plant life, the animals and man being created in a state of maturity just as you stated. When sin entered the world, a process of decline or decay began. If sin had not entered the world, the created order could have continued for billions of years without ever showing any signs of decay or “aging” as we call it. Age alone does not produce the effects we associate with sin. We use time to measure the process of decay but time itself does not cause it to take place.
Early humans lived very long lives because the decaying process did not occur as quickly as it does now. Adam was able to live over 900 years, whereas we are fortunate if we live 100 years. We do not know what forces were exerted on the earth at the fall or the flood or the processes God put into place that accrue over time or the relative speed of any of these things.
God alone is capable of giving the explanation and it all comes down to whether one wishes to believe the record of what He said or not. The text is clear; either believe it or reject it. There’s no need to compromise to make Christianity appear more reasonable. People do not become followers of Christ because or human reason. God created us and He is more than capable of regenerating our natures so that we can and will believe what He says.
I’m personally most persuaded by John Sailhamer’s “Historical Creationism.” Sailhamer (a conservative evangelical OT scholar) argues that many of our seemingly difficult questions about Genesis and the time frame of creation arise because modern readers (both believers and skeptics) may be asking the wrong questions of the text.
He argues that Gen. 1:1 serves as a summary statement, describing God’s prior creation of the entire universe. Verse 2 forward describes not the sequence of creation of the stars and planets, etc., but of “the sky and the land” - i.e., the Promised Land God was preparing for His people. He holds that the seven days are seven “real”, 24-hour days in which God was preparing Eden (the Land) for His people to inhabit. Thus, Sailhamer argues for an old earth, with a literal recent 7-day sequence for “the Land”, culminating in God’s creation of Adam to live in it.
The ancient Hebrews to whom Moses was writing didn’t conceive of “the earth” (Heb. “eretz”) as the round globe suspended in outer space, as we think of it from watching NASA documentaries. Rather, they would have understood “eretz” most naturally as “the land” around them - specifically, the Promise Land they were about to enter, and for which the Pentateuch was God’s means of preparation and instruction. Sailhamer shows that the Land is a major theme running throughout the Pentateuch, and in fact the entire OT. God’s people were made to inhabit the Land, originally contiguous with the Garden of Eden (based on the identification of the four rivers in Gen. 2). When they rebelled against Him in Gen. 3, the punishment was exile from the Land. After the Exodus, God graciously brings His redeemed people back to the Land. When they rebel (as foretold in Deuteronomy and seen in the prophets and later history), the punishment again is banishment from the Land. Finally, in Revelation we see God’s new heaven and new earth located where? - in Jerusalem, i.e., in the Land, the home of God’s redeemed people.
Hence, Sailhamer argues that perhaps a faithful reading of Genesis 1-2 (and one held by many ancient Jews and Christians) isn’t meant to tell us the precise age or sequence of the creation of the universe, but rather primarily to describe the way in which God has prepared the Land for His people. On this view, it is possible to maintain a “literal” 24-hour 7 day reading of the text, while also allowing for (though by no means requiring) an old earth/universe.
While I’m open to other views, this one seems to me to make the best sense of the text in its canonical context.
Matt Perman has a nice synopsis of this view:http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByTopic/99/4645_Scie…
Thanks for the article - I wish I had been there!
Something else that many confused Christians also fail to take into account is that Naturalistic science is not infallible. Of course we know it, but we fail to understand the implications; when naturalistic scientists offer an explanation of something in the natural world, we take their interpretations without the proverbial grain of salt.
When we come to the geologic column, for instance, we hear the reigning theory tell us that this is what an old world looks like, and therefore the world is old - because it looks like an old world. This is silly. Nobody knows what an old world looks like. The geological column has no parallel on earth; we can’t determine WHAT it looks like because it doesn’t look like anything but itself. We can’t compare the geologic column on earth to another geologic column of known age. Such a measuring device does not exist. We weren’t there when it was constructed, so we don’t really know how it went together either - once again, we can merely guess. So in any case neither the appearance nor the method of construction of the geologic column are capable of truly informing the other. We must explain both coherently with a single theory, which will always be based on guesswork.
Perhaps our guesses are rational, but they will ultimately be informed by our philosophical assumptions about the world itself. In the geological column we see what our world looks like. Old or young? We are not told. All we know is that it looks like, “a world.”
If we believe that the world is old, then we will decide that the way this earth looks (the geologic column) is the way an old earth looks - that the earth looks like an old world - and this in turn will influence the mechanisms we propose for how it was constructed. If we believe that the world is young, then we will decide that the earth looks like a young world, and this will inform how we explain how it came to be the way it is now.
Convincing and rational arguments exist on both sides, but perhaps what is more revealing than any amount of geology is, as Mr. Turk said above, that one side seems fiercely intent on constructing a world in which there is no authority above the human will. And that should be telling.
I propose that the Universe does not look so old. Instead, I propose that the “doctors” who are trying to determine the age of the earth TELL us that it looks so old, (when in reality it merely “looks”,) because they themselves are decidedly biased in favor of seeing it as old. Perhaps it is because they are so mortal themselves.
G.K. Chesterton said “…we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.” I’m sure this ties in somewhere. If it’s Chesterton, it has to, right? :)
I have to disagree here. A belief in an old earth via something like the Day Age view, or even the Framework view, is not as harmful to orthodoxy as Mohler is making it sound. Many, many evangelical scholars do not hold to a six 24-hour day creation and still faithfully maintain that Adam was real and that he really rebelled.
In terms of reading the text straightforwardly, how does a six 24-hour day reading of Genesis 1 square with Genesis 2? In Genesis 1, plants arrive on Day 3 (1:11-12) and man on Day 6 (1:26-27), but in Genesis 2 bushes and plants had not yet sprung up (2:5) when God created Adam (2:7). Then after Adam is created God causes trees to spring up from the ground (2:8). Not trying to be argumentative, but there are better ways to reconcile this text than to say that “it just has to be 24 hours”. And the “Hebrew word for day always means 24 hours” argument just doesn’t hold water. The same word that is used for “day” in ch. 1 (yom) is used in 2:4 to express the entirety of the creation event, not just one particular day in it.
Furthermore, if we are reading the text plainly, then we must believe that all of the following happened in one 24-hour period: creation of Adam (2:7), placement of Adam in the garden (2:15), naming of every living creature (2:19), creation of Eve (2:22). Is it really all that tenable to think that God created Adam, placed him in the garden, paraded every living creature before him to be named, and created Eve all in the same day? How could Adam have possibly named all the animals in a 24-hour period?
TimW, you might want to read this well-written critique of Sailhamer’s view. It raises many key questions that Sailhamer has yet to answer with his “Historical Creationism.”
http://creation.com/unbinding-the-rules
When looking at Gen 1&2, I often ask “Why is it we need another view to describe what is occurring? Why is the 6-day, 24-hour view not good enough anymore?” Your answer to these questions will reveal where you really put your faith.
It’s frightening to see the power of the principalities of this world that are taking the minds of even our seemingly most orthodox bastions of Reformed theology captive. When the PCA geologists recently proclaimed their stance on the antiquity of the earth as published in Modern Reformation (http://bit.ly/a69m2l), they concluded their presentation with the argument that we as Christians must conform to the old-age indoctrination based on what the world might think of our message if we don’t conform - “Non-Christians who logically understand geology conclude that the path to Christ requires belief in an intentionally deceptive god and choose to place their faith elsewhere.” Remember it was Paul who sought to bolster the faithful in testifying, “but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts (1 Thes 2:4).” Should we now allow the fear of man dictate how we are going to formulate our exegesis of Scripture? We must realize what we’ve been entrusted with as ambassadors of Christ and assure that we are not being “conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect (Rom 12:2).”
In formulating the initiation of African Christian University, a Reformed, Christ-exalting university of the arts and sciences in Zambia, Africa, we have been amazed at the conforming power of this “scientific” proclamation upon the West’s Christian higher education institutes. This exemplifies the reality of the powers of these worldly principalities that are vigorously at work in attempting to derail the foundations of our faith in the inerrancy of Scripture. As has been widely observed, it is no wonder the center of Christian faith is shifting from the West.
I am very grateful that Al Mohler is willing to illuminate the significance of this issue. May Christ’s church awake to the fundamentals of our faith that are steadily being chipped away in concurrence with those who should re-examine their commitment to Sola Scriptura. “Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first.”
Tim,I have a lot of thoughts on this topic, since I’m a serious Reformed Baptist who also works in a field that overlaps with some of the natural sciences. I’m actually in the middle of going through these thoughts on my blog (see link above), and a physicist friend of mine from church has also been contributing, and those thoughts might contribute to this discussion.
I thought I’d respond here specifically to your (or Mohler’s) question about sin and death, i.e., did biological death precede the fall. We have to take Romans 5:12ff. as part of his larger argument of the opening chapters of Romans: justification by faith alone. In Romans 5, Paul is clearly talking about human death as the result of human sin: ‘sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.’ Death spread to all men because all men sinned (in Adam and in themselves), but death did not spread to all rodents because all rodents sinned. Likewise, we [humans] are righteous in Christ by faith and thus live eternally, just as we [humans] are sinful by nature (and by action) in Adam and apart from Christ stand eternally condemned. The same cannot be said for all life. If animals and plants died as a consequence of the sin of Adam, it would mean that he stood as their federal head, and it would mean—following the logic of Paul’s argument in Romans 1-5—that by faith they could be righteous in Christ. But that’s clearly not Paul’s point. His point is about where we stand before God in Adam, and where we can stand before God if we trust in the merits of Christ alone for our salvation.
Here’s one of my posts on original sin, death, and Romans 5 on my blog: http://kris.shaffermusic.com/blog/?p=436 I also reference John Stott’s commentary on Romans which has some excellent material on what is/isn’t at stake when considering ‘theistic evolution’ from the perspective of Romans 5. I highly recommend that chapter in his commentary for any interested in the theological implications of evolution.
I don’t see how a young earth/literal 24-hour day reading of Genesis, coupled with an understanding that God created the universe with the appearance of age, either involves more faithful exegesis or gets us away from the the theological problems associated with the fall.
First, the most natural reading of Genesis 1 is that three days, complete with evenings and mornings, occurred before God created the sun on the fourth day. When God created the sun and moon, he did so to separate the day from the night (v.14). Without a sun, it is difficult to conceive how the first three days, evenings and mornings can be understood as literal 24-hour periods. That alone appears to signal that the “days” in Genesis 1 may be different than our understanding of days. Further, unlike the ancient Hebrews, we now understand that time itself is not static and is bound up with the created order. Is it so difficult to conceive that God could have caused many eons to pass in a single “day”? God gives us plenty of evidence in the Bible that the physical laws of the universe do not bind him (e.g., speaking things into existence, making the Sun go back in the sky).
I recognize that a day-age theory presents serious theological problems when it comes to the fall. But I don’t see how we escape those problems by saying that God made the universe to appear old. From what I’ve seen, everything about the fossil and geological record speaks to a world that included death and decay. Are we to understand the world as created perfect (i.e., without actual death and decay), but with the appearance of death and decay? The only clear way I see around those issues is by saying that the entire universe actually is young and that everything that appears to have happened actually happened in the 10,000-odd years since God created it. But that position puts Christians in the position of saying that science like carbon dating is just wrong and positing incredible explanations for things like the dinosaurs (e.g., saying dinosaurs lived in the Middle Ages and men called them dragons).
Kris Shafer,
Why does Paul say in Romans 8:19-22:
For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.
What is creation groaning for if not the fall of man which affected the whole earth? What futility was the creation subjected to? Here, creation does not include man because Paul says “not willingly”, meaning sub-human creation had no choice in the matter. Moo (in his Romans Commentary p.514) states “With the majority of modern commentators, then, I think that creation here denotes the “subhuman” creation.”
Those who accept death in the animal world before Man’s sin, in addition to having to explain Romans 8:19-22 above, are accepting that death and decay are the natural order of the world God created. How then can God say creation was “very good” in Gen. 1:31 if there was death and decay?
Thank you for posting this.
**haven’t read other comments yet**
The problem of the fall is a real problem and the argument there is coherent and must be dealt with by old-earth Evangelicals.
That said, the Adam problem doesn’t seem to make sense to me at all. Tim said:”The story it is telling is of billions of years of creation before the arrival of Adam. How then can it account for a historical Adam? An old earth understanding requires an arbitrary intervention of God in suddenly creating Adam and depositing him in the world. This presents problems both in Genesis and Romans.”
1) We’d maintain that God was active in all of creation whether it took 6 days or 6billion years and then acted directly in the creation of man and woman. I’m not sure why it should be called “arbitrary intervention” if it is after 6 days and not after 6 billion.
2) Even if it is “arbitrary intervention,” what is the problem with this? God acts uniquely and decisively throughout human history in concentrated locations. After the 400 years of silence, we’d say that God uniquely acted in bringing Jesus into the world and in all of the events surrounding that. Why should it be different when Adam and Eve are brought into the world?
3) So therefore, I see that you’ve said that this intervention by God creates a problem in Genesis and/or Romans, but I don’t see what the problem is.
-Just my thoughts,mike
A second comment:
While we don’t want to use general Revelation to trump special Revelation, we also don’t want to pretend that general Revelation does not exist. There is nothing wrong with letting general revelation inform our special revelation.
If the Bible speaks about the sun moving, we can understand it as speaking from a man-centered or earth-centered position, and therefore the sun appears to be moving. We allow our general revelation knowledge (ie. the sun is stationary) to inform our view of Scripture. The same can be done here.
Finally. these sentences seem to be at odds:
“The avoidance of this question about the age of the universe will come at the cost of our own credibility”AND”In the end the conclusive answer to this question is known only to God. This is where we are left; and it is a safe place to be.”
The ‘arbitrary intervention’ would be when, after 6 billion years, God picked a certain ape and pushed him just over the edge from animal to human. Gave him a soul, I suppose. Then Adam was a man, then he became accountable, then he fell. In that scenario.
Also I suppose God would have also had to put this newly awakened soul to sleep, remove his rib, and fashion Eve.
So, 6 billion years of textbook evolutionary activity with no direct intervention by God; then, the ensoulment and the creation of Eve.
Stretches the text to the point of breaking it completely in my opinion.
A book worth picking up and reading: William Dembski’s The End of Christianity - Finding a good God in an evil world.A bit heavy at times but readable.I give two endorsements of this book.(1) William Dembski’s latest book, The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World, shows how the traditional Christian doctrine that sin entered the world through humans is not refuted by the evidence that natural evils (earthquakes, storms, disease, death, etc.) are chronologically much older than humans within the universe. Because time within the created universe need not follow the same order as the logical process of God’s creation of the universe, human sin could have caused earlier evil. There are many aspects of the problem of evil left mysterious by this book (and indeed by all other attempts to solve the problem), but I strongly recommend The End of Christianity as a refreshing approach that maintains the traditional theistic doctrines of God’s omniscience and omnipotence.(2) Happily, there are many good books being written today. But it is rare, indeed, to find a book that towers over the others in profundity and quality. William Dembski’s The End of Christianity is such a book. It is so interesting and well-written that I could not put it down. But more importantly, I have read very few books with its depth of insight, breadth of scholarly interaction, and significance. From now on, no one who is working on a Christian treatment of the problem of evil can afford to neglect this book. It is vintage Dembski and I highly recommend it.
- J. P. Moreland, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Biola University and author of The God Question-Don Page, Professor of Physics, University of Alberta, Canada
Our church did a study a while back from an organization found at this link, http://www.answersingenesis.org/. They did a nice job of presenting what is known and correlating it to what the Bible says. On top of that, they clearly outlined the importance of doing this. Check it out, there isn’t any reason to be ashamed of admitting that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, is truth and is historically accurate.
Marie,
If that is the case, then I would say it reflects a misunderstanding that all Evangelicals who support an old-Earth view also support macro evolution, which is decidedly not the case.
I’m hoping that neither Tim nor Dr. Mohler would be suggesting this.
I like what ReubenK said above…. the earth only looks old because we are conditioned to think that it does.
But approx 6000 years is a long time - isn’t it? We only say young-earth in relation to a 4.5 billion year claim.
Sin brought death, No Death before sin the death knell to science falsely so-called.
Appreciate the discussion very much as I have been striving for some time to be gracious to brothers in Christ who see something friendly to an old earth understanding for some time.
The discussion is often difficult - can become heated. I’m very thankful for Albert Mohler’s recent talk. Thankful for all the recent events that is bringing this subject to the current still civil discussions between brothers.
David,
Dembski’s book has some serious flaws. See here:
http://www.sbts.edu/resources/files/2010/02/sbjt_134_book_reviews.pdf
And here:
http://blog.founders.org/2010/03/tom-nettles-responds-to-paige-patterson…
I am surprised that nothing has been said (or at least, no strong discussions have been set forth in this forum) regarding the challenge of starlight to belief in a young earth. The laws of physics and mathematics as we currently know them demand that we recognize the light of distant galaxies to be millions of years old. Evolution is merely speculation and can be easily refuted, as demonstrated by those who promote intelligent design. On the other hand, telescopic measurements regarding the distance to the Andromeda galaxy, for example, indicate that it is 2 million light years away. It seems that we have hard science that presents a problem to a young earth. If we believe that the earth is no more than, perhaps 8 to 10 thousand years old, then we need to have an intellectually honest way of dealing with those who cannot reconcile distant starlight to a young earth. Frankly, I am surprised Dr. Mohler did not present this as a major issue in his presentation.
I’m pretty sure the only answer to that is that since God created things with age (eg. Adam was created as a man, not a fetus), then he could have created the galaxies, rocks, etc. with age.
I don’t find that answer particularly compelling, but it’s probably the best “intellectually honest” answer there is.
James, that’s like saying the virgin birth presents a major problem to the scientific community. We have hard science that shows a virgin birth is not possible by human standards, yet it happened. Historical science is not the same as observational science. To assume things have always been the same way they are now is a “Uniformitarian” approach, which Dr. Mohler did mention.
I am with Michael Garner on this one. I have long struggled to make a more “intellectual argument” for a young earth, but for me it think it is very simple. The Bible describes the creation literally with 24 hour days.
Like it is said above Adam is nothing and then he is a man. It seems reasonable to conclude that in the same way the earth was nothing and then it was a planet. Unless we argue that at the moment of creation the Earth was just the core and nothing else, we could reasinably conclude that the all the layers of the Earth including the dinosaur fossil record were already in place at the moment of creation.
Great discussion all.
Tony
Regarding distant starlight and the time it takes to reach the earth, see here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove
Thanks for posting these notes Tim. I was watching via the live feed and taking my own notes, but they weren’t anywhere near as thorough as yours, so I appreciate having these to refer back to.
Dr. Mohler brought up several points that I hadn’t considered before. Much food for thought.
Thanks for your part in the conference. I found the pre-conference portion on technology very beneficial.
Yes, MBT, Mohler’s superficial dismissal of a “Framework” interpretation of Genesis 1 is incredibly irresponsible, both academically and ecclesiastically.
Challies readers will do well to examine how the Framework view submits to the Scriptures with the utmost care and reverence as the inerrant Word of God.
See here, for example: http://www.opc.org/OS/html/V9/1c.html
No Tony, the dinosaur fossils were not “already in place..”.
The fossils are the result mainly of the flood. Dinosaurs co-existed with Man; being land based they were created on Day 6 before Man was created as the pinnacle of Gods creation.
Baus, if this wasn’t so serious I would fall about laughing at your ridiculous insinuations regarding the integrity of Al Mohler.
With all due respect I think you should broaden your reading and especially allow the bible to speak for itself.
Virtually all the so called ‘problems’ come about because too many people want to impose things on the Text from outside of Scripture and then demand that Scripture bow before it.
To answer the question in the Title of this post;Why Does the Universe Look So Old?
Answer: So would you after over 6000 years
Even if I held to the young earth view, I would hope that I could do so without the smug condescension that seems so prevalent by its adherents. Isn’t it possible for you to maintain your view and defend it without also suggesting that anybody who would dare to disagree either is uneducated or doesn’t care about Scripture?
Michael,Romans 8 is more consistent than Romans 5 with the position that ‘subhuman’ death did not precede the fall. However, if Romans 5 does not speak to the question of animal/plant death in relation to the fall (which I laid out in my first comment and blog post, following Stott), it’s hard to start with Romans 8 and end up with so specific a conclusion regarding death and the fall. In arguments over this point, Romans 5 is always the anti-evolution prooftext, not Romans 8, for that very reason. So while I’m sympathetic with your understanding of Romans 8, that understanding needs Paul to be talking about ‘subhuman’ death in Romans 5 to preclude natural selection based on Paul’s discussion of the creation in Romans. Otherwise, I think there are a range of potential interpretations of Romans 8, ruling out neither young-earth creationism nor theistic evolution.
Kris, I’m not following your argument. If Romans 5 talks of sin and human death, why is Paul not then able to speak of sin affecting subhuman creation in chapter 8?
There is not a “range of interpretations” unless one has to try and make it match chapter 5. But we must let Paul speak for himself in chapter 8, which he clearly does speak of subhuman creation in the verses I mention. Lexically the Greek for creation in 8:19 is , which is the same Greek word Paul uses in 8:39 for created things: “nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Contextually and lexically Paul is talking about subhuman creation in 8:19-22. All of this is stretching the text beyond its normal reading. Someone in Rome around Paul’s time would simply read Romans 8 as talking of all creation, which certainly includes animals, trees…everything God created. Why does all creation groan? Because it’s affected by sin. Why is it affected by sin? The Fall. What is the punishment of the fall? Death. Therefore animals could not have died before the Fall. Not even an issue in church history until we tried to reconcile science with the Bible.
Kris, was creation “very good” (Gen. 1:31) after God finished, even though you view would insist on animal death and decay?
It seems to me that Mohler is quite right in emphasizing the need to let Scripture have the final word in determining what we believe about earth’s history and age. We must let special revelation be the lenses through which we view natural revelation. Genesis 1 clearly speaks of days with a morning and an evening, each day comprising a single rotational cycle of light and darkness. Yet it seems to me that the term “natural day” or perhaps “24 hour-like day” is preferable to the more duration-specific term “24 hour day” for this reason: the Bible nowhere explicitly specifies the duration of each creation day. We have at least one example in the Bible of a ‘natural day’ whose duration differed from the 24-hour duration with which we are familiar— I mean the ‘long day’ of Joshua 10. Was that ‘long day’ a ‘natural day, a ‘24-hour like day”? Yes, it was. Was it of 24 hours duration? No, it was not. If it was not of 24 hours duration, can we still call it a day? Yes, we can, because God does. Therefore, duration is not the defining feature of a natural day, or God would not have called the ‘long day’ of Joshua 10 a ‘day.’ With that in mind, is it really necessary for us to specify the duration of all six creation days— especially that of the first three days, whose duration was not measured by the earth’s rotation in relation to any fixed “light bearer” in the heavens? Is it not enough to affirm that God created the world in six natural days or ‘24 hour-like’ days of light followed by darkness, each day with a morning and an evening? Personally, I think is all we really need to affirm.
Glenn,
Thanks for the clarification, best regards in your studies.
Tony
While I agree with the points raised concerning the existence of Adam and the fall, I just don’t see how that extends to Genesis 1. Gen 1 is written differently to the rest of the book. The point is clear - God made everything, there is nothing made that he did not make. How wonderful is God to have made it!!
I remain firmly on the fence here because it is an argument that I am somewhat out of my depth here, particularly when chatting to non-Christian friends. I’d much rather get to the gospel that argue for literal 6 day creation with them. So I plead non-literal Genesis 1, but literal Genesis 2&3 based on “the discovery of ancient near-eastern parallels to the biblical account” and “the development of higher criticism and new approaches to the Bible”. This means we don’t get bogged down in the nuts and bolts of creation forming, but look at God doing it, the creation of Man and Adam rebelling. Which is the prologue to God then rescuing us with Jesus.
I just don’t see how arguing about the need to believe in a literal Genesis chapter ONE is necessary. Genesis chapters TWO and THREE I completely understand for the above reasons. But Genesis 1 is written differently and it is NOT necessary to believe it took place literally.
Kathryn, to think Gen. 1 did not take place literally is a very dangerous belief. We should never feel a need to protect certain parts of the bible due to what non-believers think of it when witnessing to them.
Imagine your argument being the same, but changing it to any other chapter of the Bible. “Matthew 5 is difficult for non-believers to accept, so I simply do not take a literal view of it.” or “Paul’s writings are difficult for modern Americans to accept due to his sinful view of homosexuality, so therefore I don’t think we have to believe them.”
It’s interesting how people divide up Genesis. Some will insist the first 3 days of creation are written differently(Framework Theory). Other scholars say all of chapter 1 is written differently(Sailhamer). Some say the first 11 chapters are not to be take as historical because of the Flood story, but simply as a parable (most liberals). And even others deny the existence of a real Abraham later in Genesis.
The Bible is not a menu of beliefs, where we can just pick and choose the easy items to accept. It was written to convey a certain meaning to readers at the time. Therefore, even liberal scholars will agree that the writer of Genesis intended his readers to take it literally. Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:
“Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.”
While I’m as keen as anybody here to hold Scripture above any other revelation (ie science) when it comes to how and why the world works…
I think two steps from Mohler’s syllogism (and their presentation/affirmation within this post) are strawman arguments that bear no correlation with the views held and espoused by members of the reformed camp…
“The literary theory. Here we take the first eleven chapters of Genesis as literary, understanding that the Creation story is merely myth, a story as understood by ancient Hebrews.”
This is not representative of any reformed version of the literary theory that I have read (for example Longman III “How to Read Genesis”).
“The literary theory has to be rejected out-of-hand since it otherwise contradicts inerrancy. We cannot hold to a robust theory of biblical inerrancy and interpret the chapters in this way.”
I don’t see how trying to understand and interpret the Bible using genre is in anyway a contradiction of the doctrine of inerrancy. I can understand that different people reach different conclusions on the genre of Genesis 1-11, but to suggest that this interpretive framework is in conflict with inerrancy is just not true.
“The exegetical issues are real and the exegetical evidence based on a Reformation understanding of Scripture leads to a natural understanding of 24-hour days in creation.”
Whose reformation? Calvin himself said this of Genesis 1:16:
“I have said, that Moses does not here subtly descant, as a philosopher, on the secrets of nature, as may be seen in these words. First, he assigns a place in the expanse of heaven to the planets and stars; but astronomers make a distinction of spheres, and, at the same time, teach that the fixed stars have their proper place in the firmament. Moses makes two great luminaries; but astronomers prove, by conclusive reasons that the star of Saturn, which on account of its great distance, appears the least of all, is greater than the moon. Here lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend.”
I find it hard to take the rest of the conclusions seriously given how fallaciously Mohler dismisses alternative views. Interpretations on Genesis 1-11 are myriad, and justifiably so. There is “evidence” in any direction one looks. Even when looking at the same scripture together and taking the “plain reading”…
As an old-earth creationist my problem with a young earth view is not that the universe appears old (I’d have no trouble if it was merely old) - it’s that it has history.
When we see supernovae, colliding galaxies and gamma ray bursts as stars are torn into nothingness by black holes, and appears to have started from nothing in a big bang, that is not just age, but also history. It’s as if God made Adam with scars, missing teeth, an appendectomy, perhaps the amputation of a limb or two and a belly-button indicating that Adam had had been in fights, suffered diseases and been born of a non-existent mother, none of which happened at all. The way I see it that would be God lying to us about Adam’s ‘history’ and I can’t see how it would be different when it comes to the universe.
And if God is lying to us on the vastest scale imaginable (99.999999999999%+ of everything that ever existed), how could that be at the same time the God of the Bible who is ‘The Truth’ and ‘not a man that he should lie’?
While I understand the difficulties an old-earth view poses with regards to original sin and the fall that Tim discusses in his post (and a few more besides), I find the arguments of old-earth creationists convincing enough that I can live with the difficulties - for me a far greater difficulty would be knowing that God is lying about everything.
If God created Adam as a mature man and didn’t start him out as an embryo then why couldn’t He have created the earth in a mature state. I think people want to try and make things more difficult than what they really are in order to feel like they are smart.
You might as well have linked to Answers in Genesis. The points he makes don’t even address Sailhamer’s textual analysis of the text. It’s hardly a scholarly rebuttal.
The fact is, Genesis 1:1 states that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. This was before he started with the 24 hour days in verses 3-31. Read it yourself. It’s pretty clear that what God “formed and made” was used by what he created in verse 1, namely the heavens and the earth. The ‘heavens and the earth” referring to the universe itself.
Read this review of Sailhamer’s Genesis Unbound from Desiring God.http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByTopic/99/4645_Scie…
Neil, I don’t think you need to impute motive to people here. As a previous poster stated, its not so much that the universe has age as that it has history. God could have created pseudo-history, but this severely stretches out understanding of God. It’s not just that light has reached us and that the light must be old, it’s that there are exploding galaxies, for example, and that these events either happened long before 10,000 years ago, or God created the universe to look as if they happened when in fact they did not. I don’t think that would be a MAJOR problem, but it is at least something to consider when expecting all Christians everywhere to believe the world is less than 10k years old.
And this statement just amazes me. His definition of “world-class university” or “Hebrew or OT scholar” must be incredibly different than mine. I can think of major OT scholars who subscribe to all of the points he mentions:
“”Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.”“
Michael,I’m sorry if I was at all unclear. I wholeheartedly agree that Romans 8 refers to non-human elements of creation. What Romans 8 doesn’t say is that biological death did not occur in nature before the fall, but that it does after the fall as a result of the fall. It says that it will ‘be set free from its bondage to corruption’ in the consummation of the Kingdom. And there are certainly a ‘range of interpretations’ possible from that text on its own.
The interpretation that Paul means in Romans 8 ‘no non-human biological death before the fall’ is predicated on an interpretation of Romans 5 that I argued against earlier. If Romans 5 is, as I argue, talking about soul-endowed mankind and our relationship to Adam—our federal head by nature—or Christ—our head by grace through faith—then I don’t think you can argue that ‘no non-human biological death before the fall’ is the only view consistent with Romans 8. It is consistent with Romans 8, of course, but I don’t think you can argue that it’s demanded by Romans 8.
(Though they’re related, I’ll answer your second question in a separate comment for clarity’s sake.)
part 1 (rejected earlier comment attempts, so maybe there’s a length limit?):As for your second question, Michael, yes, I think God can say that creation was ‘very good’ in Genesis 1:31 without lying, even if there is biological death and decay. If we look at the whole of Scripture and redemptive history, we see a singular purpose in the creation and existence of the universe: the glory of God. Specifically, we see that Christ honors the Father by submitting to his will in becoming man, fulfilling the Covenant of Works on our behalf, becoming sin for us and dying in our place (fulfilling the curse of the Covenant of Works on our behalf), sovereignly drawing a people to God from every tongue, tribe, and nation. The Father glorifies the Son by giving him all authority, and an inheritance of nations: his bride, the church. The world created in Genesis 1 was perfectly suited to this purpose. In that sense, it is certainly ‘very good.’
The Psalmists, Prophets, and Apostles also tell us that the vastness, majesty, and seeming immutability of creation bear witness to the existence of an Almighty Creator and the power and trustworthiness of that Creator to keep his covenant promises (both for blessing and destruction). (See Romans 1, Psalm 33, Isaiah 42 & 45, Acts 17, Jeremiah 4 & 51, for example.) The world created in Genesis 1 was perfectly suited to this purpose, and so in that sense, it is also ‘very good.’
Where I would not be willing to go is to say that the world was ‘very good’ in the same way that the New Heavens and the New Earth will be. For example, I don’t think (because Scripture does not say it, and because some things in Scripture contradict it) that Adam was in a glorified body before the fall. Further, Satan was allowed access to the world soon after Genesis 1 (if he weren’t there already). And it’s certainly not the case that Adam was free from sin before the fall; he was free *to* sin, and in fact, God had already ordained that he would sin. That will all be different on the New Earth. So I don’t think that creation in Genesis 1 was in the state it was meant to be for all eternity, which was marred by the fall. There were already some key things about it that set up expectation for an even greater New Creation to come, by the work of Christ.
part 2:
If we feed that back into Romans 8:21, we find something interesting: ‘the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.’ What is that ‘freedom’ which creation—and regenerate believers currently in natural bodies—longs for? Is it the freedom of Adam before the fall—freedom to choose sin or righteousness? Or is it the freedom of all who are in Christ after the resurrection of the dead and the redemption of our bodies—freedom *from* sin, to live forever in righteousness and holiness, without fear, to the glory of God? I think it’s the latter, and I don’t think that ‘freedom’ was present before the fall, or else there wouldn’t have been a fall. Thus, Romans 8 is not telling us that there was a perfect state from which creation fell (along with Adam or otherwise); it is telling us that there is a *future* state for which creation longs, when sin, death, and the devil will be destroyed once and for all.
Let’s look at this passage for what it actually says regarding the fall and the origin of Adams death.
22Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.
If all death, disease, and anything imperfect were the result of the first sin, then how does one interpret this passage? According to this passage the source of eternal life was the tree of life God had given in the garden. This idea is repeated in Rev 22 where the tree of life makes it re-appearance. Verse 22 leaves open the possibility that man, now sinful, could still live forever if he continued to eat from the tree. The decisive act which lead to death was Adam and Eve being removed from the garden. Adam was driven out of the garden “lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever”. If this is true then it assumes that there was already death, sickness, and toil outside of the Garden.Though certainly not a perfect theory many problems can be worked out when we interpret the Garden as being what Gen 2:8 presents it to be, namely a specific place, specially created in the world in which Adam, the first human was placed (note in Gen 2:7 Adam was created first, then the garden, which makes Gen 3:23 make sense). Interpretations which state that all death and disease including that of animal and plant life started with the fall assume the benefits of the tree of life and the Garden extended to the entire earth. I find it very hard to find this in the first 3 chapters of Genesis. I believe the best interpretation is to leave the Garden as the most clear reading of Gen 2-3 would have us to do, as a specific, specially created place for God to place man. This can fit well with an old-earth view which keeps: the historicity of Adam, the origin of human death with the fall, and a special (ie non-evolutionary) creation of man.
Andrew, I’ve read DG’s article on Sailhamer’s view. The critique at creation.com is very scholarly, showing verse after verse that Sailhamer’s view is unable to handle. Since the Bible is taken as a whole, and cannot contradict itself, it is more important that his argument handle these “defeaters”, in addition to just sounding good.
Kris, to think that God said it was “very good” when there was already death and disease in the world is a troubling thought to say the least. True, this was not the glorified state, but it is very difficult, almost impossible to think, that before 1800 A.D. anyone reading Genesis 1&2 would consider death and decay “very good.”
RP, so if animals can’t eat from the tree of life, therefore they must have died before Adam sinned? This would require too much reading in between the lines. If the world was only a few days/weeks old at the time of Adam’s sin (assuming animals could eat from the tree, and that this was the only way they would live), they would not need to eat from the tree because Adam’s sin would have occurred before their normal life would have ended. But it doesn’t follow that animals had to eat from the tree of life to live.
To all old earth creationists, why when critiquing young earth creation is science primarily used, but when young earth creationists critique old earth creation Scripture is primarily used?
Michael said:”To all old earth creationists, why when critiquing young earth creation is science primarily used, but when young earth creationists critique old earth creation Scripture is primarily used? “Good question and observation as a general rule. The answer has to do with what is regarded as more authoritative. If you believe in an old earth, the ever changing, fallible and remarkably nascent pronouncements of science are regarded as the more secure ground for what is true in the matter of origins. If you believe in a young earth, the never changing, infallible Scriptures which perfectly and clearly testifies to God’s activity in creation is regarded as the more secure ground for what is true in the matter of origins.
In reading all the comments, I find one thing very ironic. All of the discussion supporting an old-age perspective is based on supposed empirical science that has then driven theology, which then contorts hermeneutics, in attempting to bring the Scriptures in line with the science. Firstly, is this not concerning in itself?
It is important to consider the presuppositions of those who have designed the experiments to produce the empirical data to which they could attach their conclusions. If we had spent a fraction of the research money in the USA alone on doing top-notch scientific research across disciplines from a presupposition of seeking out knowing God more thoroughly through studying His creation, if our experiments were then designed from this presupposition to produce empirical data to which such scientist then attached their conclusions, do you believe that our understanding of God’s creation would be identical to the science that is being used to base theology on today?
It is imperative that of all people, those with the mind of Christ exercise all discernment regarding what is constantly being exalted as “objective science.” That same objective science has been established on the presupposition that all things occur by chance and time without a need for design. How would our scientific understanding, let alone our creativity in pursuing science differ if it were, and had always been from the presupposition that there was a Creator whose character (“fingerprint”) is upon everything we study?
God is still sovereign, so I’m not suggesting that things have gone awry in the direction science has pursued. But I am suggesting that as those redeemed in Christ who are mature, we must use the discernment of good and evil that has been developed through practice from rightly handling the Word of righteousness. Do we need to reconsider if Biblical discernment is truly being applied in this debate?
Michael, young earth creationist refuse to acknowledge the text as it is written. Historic creationists such as myself acknowledge what the text actually says without having to bend, or worse, ignore scripture. Just look at the Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” What young earth creationists need to do is separate this statement from it’s chronological context and say it’s talking about the entirety of the creation account.
This supposition is torn down in the very next verse. “The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep.” What is the author talking about? Well, the state of the world before the 7 days of creation. This state of the world makes young earthers uncomfortable because it’s before God says “Let there be light” and isn’t even lumped into the 7 days of creation in the subsequent verses. So now what can the young earther’s do with this void and formless earth? It’s not listed on their 7-day timeline.
Historic creation allow for this state of the earth. How long it took to bring the universe together in way that God wanted it who knows. We don’t have that timeline.
And to the argument that: “the church has always embraced the young earth creationist view so just roll with it” is laughable. Aren’t those the same types of things the catholic church said to Martin Luther?
“To all old earth creationists, why when critiquing young earth creation is science primarily used, but when young earth creationists critique old earth creation Scripture is primarily used?”—————————————-
We believe that God’s revelation is God’s revelation and that it is His truth whether it comes to us as Special or General revelation; the two will not contradict. I believe the scientific evidence for an old Earth is More persuasive than the hermeneutical evidence for a young Earth. I believe the Bible can be read with theological integrity and still arrive at an old earth position. I do Not believe the scientific evidence can be weighed with academic honesty and arrive at a young earth position.
Let me state it a slightly different way:
Suppose the Bible said this: “Joshua picked up two stones and then picked up two more stones. Joshua now had four stones.” I WOULD NOT use this to say that 2 + 2 must equal 5. Rather, I would suggest that perhaps Joshua already started with 1 stone in his hand, since it is the BEST explanation of the text AND the general revelation that God has made known to us.
Similarly if the Bible suggested that the SUN WAS MOVING (WHICH IT DOES!!), then I WOULD NOT use this to say that the Sun must be moving. Instead, I would argue that the author is speaking from a Man-centered / Earth-centered perspective and so it appears the sun is moving. Why? Because this is the best explanation given the text AND the general revelation that God has made known to us.
I’m surprised that none of the young-earth creationists seem the least bit bothered by the fact that EVERY argument they are presenting is exactly the same as the Christians use used to deny that the Sun was the center of our solar system and not earth.
I can just here Challies1700ad.com forum discussion with somebody saying “Attention all helio-centric proponents, please explain why you are using science to promote your view while all of us Earth-centric people use the Bible to prove our views.”