It is possible for the earth to appear old to science without it actually being old and without God being deceitful?

Faith & Science Conversation
140

Thanks for your kind words.

You are right. You did qualify it. You really do understand something of me…

Thanks for that verse. It is right for the moment.

Someday if you come back to STL, come visit me. It would be fun to talk in person. My colleagues here are kind to me. They are the people of peace that God has brought me to live with for this moment.

After that post, I will take your advice. Across these divides, is it not beautiful when we live as family together? I’m happy today because of this.

2 Likes
141

@Swamidass

How exactly did you come to the erroneous position that Mike was in agreement with you regarding an Old Earth timeline?

142

We are in agreement that…

  1. In the case that the earth is very young.
  2. and we find strong scientific evidence for an old earth,
  3. then this does not necessarily imply that God is deceitful.

Recall, @Mike_Gantt currently is a YEC, but is does not dispute that there is a lot of evidence for an old earth. He is just arguing that this is not necessarily an incoherent position.

I agree he is not incoherent. I think he is wrong about the age of the earth, but the argument from deceitfulness is strange. It also works against honestly in the Church, raising the stakes unwisely for those that are honestly convinced from Scripture of a young earth. If they choose obedience over science, they choose a better thing. I respect that he is not twisting science around his interpretation of Scripture. That is wise.

Frankly, I wish more YECs had the wherewithal to acknowledge the evidence in science for an old earth. I respect his position. It is dignified. Notice, he is not engaging in silly arguments in geology or radiodating. I respect that a great deal and do not think it correct or wise to attack his position as incoherent. It is coherent. This is how Christians should deal mystery and paradox.

If he changes his mind, it will not be because of science alone. @Mike_Gantt wants to see how this makes sense in light of Scripture, because this is where he places his trust. I’m fine with that. Pushing him by claiming falsely that his view makes God out be a liar does not make sense to me. That is just a bad theological argument. Give him time to think this through.

Wherever he lands in the end, he is a good person to learn from and talk too. He is not argumentative. He is honestly trying to understand us. Treat him well.

1 Like
143

Thank you for the parable. I agree that it is a helpful way to discuss the issue, especially for scientifically-challenged people like me. Though I do not consider myself a theologian, that is definitely the side from which I approach the issue. Allow me to answer the question which you pose at the end of the parable, which I will here paste:

My question to the theologians: Why might God choose not to leave evidence that this 100-year old tree is only a week old?

I think He did leave evidence. The question is: “Where is that evidence to be found?”

Auto manufacturers routinely install a convex mirror on the outside of the passenger door to give a driver the widest possible field of view for other cars that might be beside and behind him. Engraved on that mirror are the words "“objects in (the) mirror are closer than they appear.” Why would the manufacturer install a mirror that gives an appearance not fully aligned with reality? Because it’s more important for the driver to be aware of all the vehicles in that area than their individual exact distance from him. As is so often the case in life, it’s a matter of trade-offs. The advantages and disadvantages of a convex mirror in that situation are overall more desirable than those of a regular mirror. Where is the manufacturer’s warning to the driver that the representation he is seeing does not fully represent reality? It is not in the mirror, for that would compromise the mirror. Rather, it is on the mirror, in the words the manufacturer has engraved.

Likewise, God has given evidence that the 100-ring tree is only a week old, but He has not put that evidence in the tree. Rather it is in the words that God has sent - in the case of the parable, through the theologian. Moreover, it is as if the words have been put on a sign staked in front of the tree - for both the scientist and theologian to read. That is, modern science, as I understand it, was birthed, and has grown best, in cultures aware of the Bible. In other words, the staked sign has never been far from the tree. We can reasonably consider it to be like words engraved on the mirror.

Let me hasten to add that the example of the convex mirror does not prove that the earth is younger than it appears. Nor am I saying that this is the only kind of motivation God could have had for doing such a thing, if, in fact, He did it. I am only saying that this strikes me as one reasonable way of thinking about why appearance and reality might legitimately diverge.

1 Like
144

  1. Since the Almighty is very capable of creating without trade-offs, why wouldn’t He do so?

  2. What would you speculate to be the advantages of apparent age of the earth?

1 Like
145

Perhaps “trade-offs” was a poor word choice on my part. Think of the issue this way: Just as we would not expect the Lord to create a square circle, so we would not expect Him to create a convex mirror that behaves as a non-convex mirror.

That would be like asking, “What would you speculate to be the advantages of objects in the mirror appearing farther than they are?” There would be no advantages; the very point of the warning on the mirror is that there is an acknowledged disadvantage. The whole reason for the convex mirror is to focus on the existence of objects - not their distance. Distance is sacrificed for the purpose of maximizing awareness of existence. This is precisely why the manufacturer warns the driver not to assume distance from this mirror, just as we would be, on this view, warned by the Bible not to assume the age of the earth from scientific inquiry. It should not be hard to remind ourselves that science has much more to offer us than the answer to a question which, by my reckoning, would not change my life, from a practical standpoint, one way or the other whether it was thousands of years old or billions of years old. (The age of the earth is only of interest to me because of its possible bearing on the veracity of the Bible and its relevance to the subject of evolution.)

By creating nature such that it displays uniformity and regularity in its ordinary processes, God, in essence, is inviting scientific inquiry. Just as He made the sun and the rains to benefit believers and unbelievers alike, so He made nature to respond to the study of believing scientists and unbelieving scientists alike. As for extraordinary processes - such as miracles and, most of all, the resurrection of Christ - scientific inquiry is neither necessary nor desirable. Believers acknowledge extraordinary processes because they either experienced them directly or accepted the testimony of those who did. Thus embedding evidence of extraordinary (supernatural) processes into nature would be both superfluous and distracting to the purpose of inviting humanity to discover truths resident in the physical dimension of our existence. An unpredictable universe does not invite study. On this view, we misuse scientific data if we project its processes into the past beyond the point that God says supernatural (extraordinary) processes began the universe - just as we would misuse a convex mirror to estimate the distance of a car approaching from the rear.

Note that I am merely explaining a point of view - not arguing with anyone.

1 Like
146

@Swamidass

Your posting is well articulated.

I would only add one thought: his position is coherent to the extent that any position can be when flatly rejecting the relative value of any science that contradicts an “obscurist position” perceived to exist in the Bible.

Essentially this brings us full circle to the time when the Vatican rejected the findings of Galileo… not because his evidence was wrong but because his evidence was irrelevant. And this wasn’t even about any true Biblical position - - since nobody has ever shown the relevance of geo-centricity to the issue of Original Sin or human atonement!!!

The more modern (and “silly”) positions by YECs that you mention are at least discussions of which evidence is correct - - rather than the astounding view that evidence doesn’t matter when confronted by even Biblical innuendo.

[Pernicious typos edited; typos not pernicious left alone.]

2 Likes
147

@Mike_Gantt does care about evidence. In this thread, he has acknowledged that there are multiple lines of evidence pointing to an old earth, and wants to be taking a coherent position in relation to that evidence. In the larger conversation, he is here trying to understand our point of view because this evidence is drawing him back to Scripture with questions. Of course evidence matters to him.

He appears to be following this hermeneutic:

Biblical Statements and Natural Science

What the Bible says about the facts of nature is as true and trustworthy as anything else it says. However, it speaks of natural phenomena as they are spoken of in ordinary language, not in the explanatory technical terms of modern science; it accounts for natural events in terms of the action of God, not in terms of causal links within the created order; and it oflen describes natural processes figuratively and poetically, not analytically and prosaically as modern science seeks to do. This being so, differences of opinion as to the correct scientific account to give of natural facts and events which Scripture celebrates can hardly be avoided.

It should be remembered, however, that Scripture was given to reveal God, not to address scientific issues in scientific terms, and that, as it does not use the language of modern science, so it does not require scientific knowledge about the internal processes of God’s creation for the understanding of its essential message about God and ourselves. Scripture interprets scientific knowledge by relating it to the revealed purpose and work of God, thus establishing an ultimate context for the study and reform of scientific ideas. It is not for scientific theories to dictate what Scripture may and may not say, although extra-biblical information will sometimes helpfully expose a misinterpretation of Scripture

In fact, interrogating biblical statements concerning nature in the light of scientific knowledge about their subject matter may help toward attaining a more precise exegesis of them. For though exegesis must be controlled by the text itself, not shaped by extraneous considerations, the exegetical process is constantly stimulated by questioning the text as to whether it means this or that.
The Chicago Statement On Biblical Hermeneutics | Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

148

If your conclusion requires the laws of nature to be different for no other reason than to clear up any problematic evidence, then you don’t have much of a conclusion.

Also, if we can’t trust God’s Creation to tell us the truth, then how can we trust God’s word?

149

God’s creation doesn’t “tell” us anything. It does not vocalize the age of the earth. It just is. So we should talk about what “science tells us;” creation itself says nothing.

As Christians, we believe that our understanding of creation is fallen. We do not always clearly see the world. This should be obvious. Most of us are blind to our own mistakes and shortsightedness. We are not fundamentally logical or rational beings.

@Mike_Gantt’s analogy is helpful. Is the auto manufacturer deceptive for making a mirror labeled with “objects are closer than they appear”? Of course not, especially because their is a purpose in this distortion. One can not fault him if we came to a different conclusion by ignoring the written words.

Science, I remind you, ignores the written words. Its conclusions can be valid and correct (e.g. it looks like that car is far away through the mirror). However, things in this world are not always what they look like. I’m entirely opposed to Christians overruling science with theological concerns in the limited discourse of science. They have no right.

At the same time, the rule of science is to ignore the words. These words are also a type of evidence. They have to be taken into account when moving from “it looks like the earth is ancient” to the “earth is ancient.” Remember, as Christians, we have good reason to wonder if things are what they seem. Over and over again, we find that our view of the world is shaped by our fallen nature.

@T_aquaticus have you read “Till We Have Faces” yet? This might help make sense of this. The synopsis on wikipedia is reasonable, Till We Have Faces - Wikipedia. But I reccomend reading the book: https://www.amazon.com/Till-We-Have-Faces-Retold/dp/0156904365

It written by CS Lewis, but it is not a Christian book. It retells a Greek myth through the eyes of a pagan queen. It asks the question, “are the gods good or are they evil?” Things are not always what they seem. If it is that God exists, we should remember who judges who.

Peace.

150

@Swamidass, I didn’t really see @Mike_Gantt in that hermeneutic article you cite.

What I see in much greater contrast is this formulation derived from Mike’s posts:

  1. while admitting that there is a preponderance of Geological evidence in support of Old Earth;

  2. And even confessing that his stance comes very close to portraying God as a deceiver;

  3. If he cannot find any specific Biblical warrant for accepting an Old Earth;

  4. He must ignore the preponderance of the Geological evidence… and even…

  5. … even ignore what material there might be that God intentionally left deceptive evidence, with the presumption that what God did and what God intends will be better revealed later;

To continue to adhere to six Days of Creation, and a Young Earth.

His current fling with Biblical texts regarding pro/com on Geocentric Cosmology is most assuredly heading in the same direction set by the Vatican in the time of Galileo.

151

If I understand him correctly, what Mike is doing is trying to figure out why he accepts that the earth rotates around the sun when this is not what Scripture says. If he can figure out that it would then make it easier to come to terms with the age of the earth.

152

@T_aquaticus[quote=“T_aquaticus, post:148, topic:36232”]
Also, if we can’t trust God’s Creation to tell us the truth, then how can we trust God’s word?
[/quote]

I am very curious by the line of reasoning that questions why God would cause His creation to mislead when there seems to be no concern at all as to why His Word would mislead.

There is a very clear problem that everyone on Biologos faces. If the earth is young then God is misleading us all in those many evidences that point to an old earth & universe. However, if the universe is old then God is misleading us by his Word.

In God’s Word, after describing some form of creative work, He follows with the statement “And there was evening and there was morning the __ day”. He does this six consecutive times in describing His activity as it relates to the origins of the universe.

Can someone please explain why it’s OK for God’s Word to mislead but not his creation.

Please remember that creation is a miracle and according to @Chris_Falter[quote=“Chris_Falter, post:111, topic:36232”]
By definition, miracles … are beyond the domain of science. Also, they are extraordinary-- by definition.
[/quote], therefore if the creation is young neither creation nor His Word are misleading.

153

I was using a bit of metaphor. You are correct that we do use science to “listen” to what the creation tells us.[quote=“Swamidass, post:149, topic:36232”]
As Christians, we believe that our understanding of creation is fallen. We do not always clearly see the world. This should be obvious. Most of us are blind to our own mistakes and shortsightedness. We are not fundamentally logical or rational beings.
[/quote]

That would apply to a Christian’s understanding of the Bible as well.[quote=“Swamidass, post:149, topic:36232”]
@Mike_Gantt’s analogy is helpful. Is the auto manufacturer deceptive for making a mirror labeled with “objects are closer than they appear”? Of course not, especially because their is a purpose in this distortion. One can not fault him if we came to a different conclusion by ignoring the written words.
[/quote]

I think that is a poor analogy because we can use science to determine how the image is distorted. With the supposed “appearance” of history in both geology and astronomy, we are talking about something that can’t be discerned by science.

What about fossils? We find rocks that are appear to be in the shape animals and plants. We observe processes that sure look like they would form these types of rocks from plants and animals that have died. Should we not think of fossils as the remnants of past life? Or should we withhold judgment because God could have created the Earth with those rocks already in place, looking like animals and plants? Would God be forced to place fossils in the ground as part of the creative act for some unknown reason?

If we can’t trust our senses, then how can we trust the Bible?

1 Like
154

It isn’t okay to think that either one would ever mislead … I think that is the working presupposition of all believers here. So when we have apparent conclusions that would (careful choice of that word) lead to contradiction, that leads us to search for our error in our understanding of either one or the other or both.

2 Likes
155

There is one other hypothesis you missed.

Accept that the earth is old by our time frame viewing backwards, but that it is young by the time actually experienced by the observer, God. And God is not a deceiver, and it is just up to us to discover how both science and Genesis are true…

Physics has demonstrated that time is relative, and so God did in a day by his time frame what appears to us to be Billions of Years.by our time frame One can then explain Genesis biblically and scientifically from this hypothesis.

.

1 Like
156

I understand his task a little differently. It is my perception that he is going to conclude that the Bible really doesn’t assert Geo-Centrism (the pro geo-centrist argument is extremely weak on its best day), and then he’s going to declare another victory for Young Earth Creationism.

The flap at the time of Galileo was not so much about what the Bible said, but about a “culture war” and the authority of the Vatican. The Vatican came out of it badly … not because the Bible explicitly said the Sun goes around the Earth … but because no matter what the Bible said, there was nothing in the text that required a Geo-Centric view.

Do you really think Mike is going to come down on the side that the Bible requires geo-centrism?

I gave Mike a ripe plum - - which he tossed over his shoulder. God specifically quotes himself taunting Job for his ignorance, including his not knowing about the storehouses of Snow & Hail that God keeps. Mike’s answer was that it was a figurative description (of what, I do not know).

157

Hi Neal,

I appreciate your desire to vindicate God’s word to us. Your proposal has a couple of problems, though:

  1. It implies that God spoke to humanity in unintelligible words. At a minimum, the “actual” time frame would have been unintelligible to readers until the past 2 centuries.

  2. The order of events across the 6 “days” does not square with order of events observed in fossils, geophysics, astronomy, etc., across the 4.5B years of natural history on earth.

Your hypothesis also assumes that Genesis 1-3 belongs to the genre of journalistic, materialistic history. Given what we know about ancient Near Eastern culture and literature, that assumption is very much open to question. If you have ever lived for a year or more in a non-western culture, you would definitely appreciate how easy (and mistaken!) it is to impose a western cultural grid on another culture’s literature.

It is better, then, to view Genesis 1 as a functional ontology rather than a materialistic ontology. John Walton’s books would be the best resource if you’re interested in examining this approach.

But like I said, I appreciate the impetus behind your post.

Grace and peace,
Chris Falter

158

Hello Chris,
Thanks for responding to my post. It is always good to have one’s thinking challenged.

Regarding your first point, I might suggest that the scientific discoveries we have witnessed in the last 2 centuries are what has challenged the time frame of Genesis, and to this challenge we have had discoveries in quantum physics and theories of relativity. Up to that point the 6 24 hour day argument was much less problematic for believers, Galileo’s discovery aside, Christianity dealt with a earth not in the center of the world, but then came evolutionary theory and DNA evidence etc. So in summary, yes the real way God created the universe indeed would have been unintelligible until the past two centuries, so God told the story as he did in Genesis 1, in a way it could be understood, but yet without telling it falsely.

Regarding your 2nd point, I suggest the order of events is aligned with science… Day 1 is separating light from day including forming planets and moons. Day 2 is creation of atmosphere. Day 3 is creation of plants which evidence suggests came before Cambrian period and the oxygen they produced cleared the atmosphere which was then like Venus. Day 4 lights in the sky are now seen from earth to guide our nights and days, Day 5 Cambrian explosion and abundance (but not the first) of sea creatures leading to dinosaurs that became extinct but which evolved to birds. Day 6 Land animals (does not say first land animals and man - no need to mention dinosaurs as no one would understand this back then). Day 7 rest - creation work is finished and scientists now just view it all in a rear view mirror as witnesses to the mighty creation of God!

I am sure I will get a lot of push back on this! I will be very interested in the response.

159

More specifically, humans wrote Genesis as inspired by God, according to long standing Christian tradition. Therefore, we would expect Genesis to be influenced by the culture of the people who wrote it. This is a bit different from the physical universe around us which is quite literal and not the inspired work of human authors.

We could also look at something like the Chronicles of Narnia as another example. CS Lewis adopted a modern version of storytelling in a way that he thought would communicate Christian theology. Those books were as much a reflection of modern western culture as they are an allegory for Christian beliefs. If someone 2,000 years in the future found those books with no cultural context, what would they think? Would they think that there was literally a magical wardrobe and a lion who came back from death?

2 Likes