Old Earth Creationism

[Catholic_Dude]

I came across something very interesting which I’d like to share with others.

When it comes to the subject of creation, there is a frequent ‘battle’ between those who say the Earth was created in ‘6 literal days’ (based on a ‘literal reading of Genesis’), and those who say the Earth is (somewhere of the order of) 4.5 billion years old (based on ‘science’), and thus the ‘6 days’ must be figurative for a ‘long’ duration of period over which things evolved.

Well, it turns out there is another view called ‘Old Earth Creationism’, which is a sort of ‘middle ground’ between the two more common views. While there are variants, this is the general principle: OEC teaches that according to science (e.g. geology), the world is ‘very old’ (e.g. 4 billion years, hence ‘old earth’), but according to Scripture, God created all of ‘modern’ creation in 6 literal days (and thus evolution, even ‘theistic evolution’ is more or less rejected). This is not a contradiction, for the OEC position points out that ‘old’ doesn’t mean it ‘evolved’, which OECers see as a fallacious non-sequitor introduced in the Young Earth Creationists versus (Theistic) Evolutionists debate.

I find this quite fascinating, and even more interesting, it seems as if such a view as OEC can fit the Genesis 1 account of creation: 1In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

Notice that 1:1-2 can be seen as (if not is) separate from 1:3-5. With this, 1:1-2 would apply to the “old earth” view, in which the universe and/or earth was created (in some sort of instant) a ‘very long time ago’ but remained an unformed blob of sorts, while 1:3ff applies to ‘creation’ as we know it (e.g. sun, moon, trees, man) and took place over a literal 6-days (which occurred 6,000-10,000 years ago).

Any ancient or Church Father (if any) that made such a distinction between Genesis 1:1f and 1:3ff de facto espoused a form of OEC. Wikipedia states the 1909 Scofield Reference Bible espoused and popularized a form of OEC as well. (Just how ‘long’ the time gap was between 1f and 3ff is not something really addressed in early forms of OEC; it’s modern day science that is supplying the 4.5 billion number.)

This is fascinating to me, and a cause for me to pause and reconsider this whole debate, for it is a brilliant example of how one need not create tension between ‘modern day science’ and a ‘literal reading of Genesis 1’.

Your thoughts? (PLEASE: Keep your comments within the narrow parameters of how you view the plausibility of OEC and don’t take this thread off on tangents)

 

[buffalo]

I came across something very interesting which I’d like to share with others.

When it comes to the subject of creation, there is a frequent ‘battle’ between those who say the Earth was created in ‘6 literal days’ (based on a ‘literal reading of Genesis’), and those who say the Earth is (somewhere of the order of) 4.5 billion years old (based on ‘science’), and thus the ‘6 days’ must be figurative for a ‘long’ duration of period over which things evolved.

Well, it turns out there is another view called ‘Old Earth Creationism’, which is a sort of ‘middle ground’ between the two more common views. While there are variants, this is the general principle: OEC teaches that according to science (e.g. geology), the world is ‘very old’ (e.g. 4 billion years, hence ‘old earth’), but according to Scripture, God created all of ‘modern’ creation in 6 literal days (and thus evolution, even ‘theistic evolution’ is more or less rejected). This is not a contradiction, for the OEC position points out that ‘old’ doesn’t mean it ‘evolved’, which OECers see as a fallacious non-sequitor introduced in the Young Earth Creationists versus (Theistic) Evolutionists.

I find this quite fascinating, and even more interesting, it seems as if such a view as OEC can fit the Genesis 1 account of creation: 1In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

Notice that 1:1-2 can be seen as (if not is) separate from 1:3-5. With this, 1:1-2 would apply to the “old earth” view, in which the universe and/or earth was created (in some sort of instant) a ‘very long time ago’ but remained an unformed blob of sorts, while 1:3ff applies to ‘creation’ as we know it (e.g. sun, moon, trees, man) and took place over a literal 6-days (which occurred 6,000-10,000 years ago).

Any ancient or Church Father (if any) that made such a distinction between Genesis 1:1f and 1:3ff de facto espoused a form of OEC. Wikipedia states the 1909 Scofield Reference Bible espoused and popularized a form of OEC as well. (Just how ‘long’ the time gap was between 1f and 3ff is not something really addressed in early forms of OEC; it’s modern day science that is supplying the 4.5 billion number.)

This is fascinating to me, and a cause for me to pause and reconsider this whole debate, for it is a brilliant example of how one need not create tension between ‘modern day science’ and a ‘literal reading of Genesis 1’.

Your thoughts? (PLEASE: Keep your comments within the narrow parameters of how you view the plausibility of OEC and don’t take this thread off on tangents)

It seems Genesis I was written from God’s perspective. I like the tape measure analogy. God looks at a tape measure and sees all 7 layers at one time. Since we live in the tape measure we have to look back through the graduations.

 

[DavidFilmer]

The “laws of nature/science” were invented by God. When dealing with the physical world, God seems to prefer to work within those laws as much as practical.

When the crowd was hungry, Jesus did not make bread and fish appear out of thin air (though he could have). He accepted the offering of bread and fish from a boy. It’s not considered a miracle that grain and fish multiply (they do it all the time) - Jesus only accelerated the timeframe. Likewise, Jesus did not fill the empty jars at Cana with wine (though he could have) - he first instructed that they be filled with water. The liquid component of wine was once water, so - again - he accelerated the process.

God could have created the world in the manner that “science” says, or he could have created a mature universe in an instant, but in a way that was consistent with the “science” he created, and, thus, presented all evidence of being created in the “scientific” way. Maybe dinosaurs never roamed the earth, but God envisioned such a pre-history and created the earth with dinosaur remains trapped between layers of sand/rock.

It is impossible to either prove or disprove such a theory.

 

[thistle]

The “laws of nature/science” were invented by God. When dealing with the physical world, God seems to prefer to work within those laws as much as practical.

When the crowd was hungry, Jesus did not make bread and fish appear out of thin air (though he could have). He accepted the offering of bread and fish from a boy. It’s not considered a miracle that grain and fish multiply (they do it all the time) - Jesus only accelerated the timeframe. Likewise, Jesus did not fill the empty jars at Cana with wine (though he could have) - he first instructed that they be filled with water. The liquid component of wine was once water, so - again - he accelerated the process.

God could have created the world in the manner that “science” says, or he could have created a mature universe in an instant, but in a way that was consistent with the “science” he created, and, thus, presented all evidence of being created in the “scientific” way. Maybe dinosaurs never roamed the earth, but God envisioned such a pre-history and created the earth with dinosaur remains trapped between layers of sand/rock.
It is impossible to either prove or disprove such a theory.

Except that would mean God had deceived us which is something he cannot do.
There is absolutely no doubt that the earth is approx. 4.5 billion years old.

 

[AlbertBall]

Except that would mean God had deceived us which is something he cannot do.
There is absolutely no doubt that the earth is approx. 4.5 billion years old.

Correct .

 

[buffalo]

Except that would mean God had deceived us which is something he cannot do.
There is absolutely no doubt that the earth is approx. 4.5 billion years old.

God cannot deceive or be deceived. This is true. However, He is under no obligation to reveal everything to man.

If one is walking down the beach and sees a left set of footprints as far one can see, what should be the conclusion? Was there a deceiver at work?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

God cannot deceive or be deceived. This is true. However, He is under no obligation to reveal everything to man.

If one is walking down the beach and sees a left set of footprints as far one can see, what should be the conclusion? Was there a deceiver at work?

Correct. Regardless of how much ‘evidence’ is gathered, we must always be open to the idea there might be more to the story than we can see/understand. To say “God would be deceiving us” is an unsafe approach, for it implies God can only work within our understanding or must reveal so much.

 

[buffalo]

Correct. Regardless of how much ‘evidence’ is gathered, we must always be open to the idea there might be more to the story than we can see/understand. To say “God would be deceiving us” is an unsafe approach, for it implies God can only work within our understanding or must reveal so much.

I really do not know why the “deceiver God” gets so much traction to thinking men. It is so obvious that it is poor logic. There is something else at play here.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Except that would mean God had deceived us which is something he cannot do.

There’s no deception. If a latecomer arrived at the meal of the loaves and fishes, he would naturally believe that the multiplication of grain and fish had come about by natural means. Unless some witness told him otherwise, he would simply think that someone had brought along a sufficient supply of food (which had multiplied in the usual manner). Jesus would not be obligated to reveal the extraordinary nature of the meal to each latecomer. The fact that latecomers would draw their own (incorrect) conclusion about the origin of their dinner does not make Jesus a liar.

When it comes to the creation of the earth, we are all latecomers. And there are no witnesses to tell us how it was done, or if the laws of nature were accelerated or not. And, if we draw our on conclusions, God is not obligated to ratify or correct them. If our conclusions are wrong, it is not God who has deceived us - we have deceived ourselves.

 

[tjm190]

There’s no deception. If a latecomer arrived at the meal of the loaves and fishes, he would naturally believe that the multiplication of grain and fish had come about by natural means. Unless some witness told him otherwise, he would simply think that someone had brought along a sufficient supply of food (which had multiplied in the usual manner). Jesus would not be obligated to reveal the extraordinary nature of the meal to each latecomer. The fact that latecomers would draw their own (incorrect) conclusion about the origin of their dinner does not make Jesus a liar.

When it comes to the creation of the earth, we are all latecomers. And there are no witnesses to tell us how it was done, or if the laws of nature were accelerated or not. And, if we draw our on conclusions, God is not obligated to ratify or correct them. If our conclusions are wrong, it is not God who has deceived us - we have deceived ourselves.

If the laws of nature were accelerated, that changes nothing. All analysis points to the conclusion that 4.5 billion years have passed since the formation of the Earth and 14.6 since the big bang. If God ‘accelerated nature’, this is still correct- time is subjective. There is no objective difference between a world that is X years old where things occur at Y rate and a world which is X/2 years old and things occur at 2*Y rate. The same number of things have occurred, in the same order, with same relative distance between them.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I might add that the headwaiter at Cana formed his own (incorrect) conclusion about the source of the wine which Jesus had transformed. The headwaiter assumed the most natural explanation - the hosts had an additional supply of wine, but they had disregarded usual protocol by serving this superior wine last. It did not occur to the headwaiter that a guest had created wine from water in an instant, and the Gospel does not record that anybody bothered to set him straight. Nobody was under any such obligation, and not informing him does not constitute deception.

 

[DavidFilmer]

If the laws of nature were accelerated, that changes nothing.

When I say “accelerated” I don’t mean “sped up” (maybe “accelerated” is not a good word). What I mean is that some “steps” were completely skipped, but it doesn’t appear that they were skipped because the result appears to be the result of natural processes, with all the intervening steps apparently included.

Such as the loaves and fishes. Fish multiply. Jesus caused fish to multiply. OK, they were dead fish, and dead fish don’t multiply. And fish don’t multiply and grow and multiply again in an instant. That’s why it was a miracle. But it is a miracle which is grounded in a natural and ordinary process, not one which happens “out of thin air.”

The point is that a later visitor to the scene could not have known that a miracle had occurred by any natural observation he could make. To him, it was simply a big meal. If he observed the leftover fragments which were gathered, he would have no way to know that they greatly exceeded the original offering. He could not know that a miracle had taken place based on the physical evidence at the scene.

 

[AlbertBall]

When I say “accelerated” I don’t mean “sped up” (maybe “accelerated” is not a good word). What I mean is that some “steps” were completely skipped, but it doesn’t appear that they were skipped because the result appears to be the result of natural processes, with all the intervening steps apparently included.

Such as the loaves and fishes. Fish multiply. Jesus caused fish to multiply. OK, they were dead fish, and dead fish don’t multiply. And fish don’t multiply and grow and multiply again in an instant. That’s why it was a miracle. But it is a miracle which is grounded in a natural and ordinary process, not one which happens “out of thin air.”

The point is that a later visitor to the scene could not have known that a miracle had occurred by any natural observation he could make. To him, it was simply a big meal. If he observed the leftover fragments which were gathered, he would have no way to know that they greatly exceeded the original offering. He could not know that a miracle had taken place based on the physical evidence at the scene.

This kind of logic baffles me. You are basically saying we should discard the evidence because it does not concur with a book written by men who had close to ZERO understanding of the cosmos. You also forget that we can observes planetary formation out with the earth. The process that formed our solar system is understood, the age of the sun is understood, the age of the earth is understood. This comes from MULTIPLE UNRELATED disciplines and evidence. The earth is about 4.5 billion years old, that is a FACT. Plane and simple.