Among the many things that Christians bicker about is the age of the earth. There are those who say it’s very old–not at all incompatible with the broadly accepted time lines. Others say it’s got to be no more than 10,000 years old. You see, smack dab in the middle of the 17th Century, James Ussher added up the ages of all the people listed in the Bible, factored in a little Greek and Roman history and decided that the earth was created on the evening preceding 23 October 4004 B.C. Granted, the guy was a serious scholar, but his conclusion was just that: his conclusion; not biblical revelation. Scholars today recognize that the list of ‘begats’ has gaps in it, so the internal data in the Bible is insufficient to give a chronology of creation.
It’s just not a big problem for God. He knows when he set things in motion and since he didn’t give a date in the Bible it must not have been all that important to him. Unfortunately, some very well-meaning Christians have been mislead into thinking that loyalty to Ussher is the same as loyalty to the Bible. Somehow, they would tell you, if you don’t trust the good Bishop Ussher, you must not trust God.
The second point of departure–as if Christians needed something else to argue about–is how long is a day? Often a day is 24 hours, but sometimes it’s longer like it was in The Day of the Jackal; or like when the Bible talks about A Day of Vengeance. People who know a lot about Hebrew (the language the first part of the Bible was written in) has a lot less words to describe time periods than English. So it’s not being a naughty Christian to accept the possibility that day could mean a period of time–sort of like today.
So it seems like to me, the really important thing is how did the earth come about, not when. It seems a bit silly to bicker about something the Bible doesn’t worry about, when there’s a ton of evidence supporting the idea that the earth isn’t an accident.
What do you think?
Peace.
Victor
Sometimes I want to go so far as to say that nothing matters besides relationships (with God and people). In fact, I will say that. To me, arguing about things such as how old the earth is (although its really fun and exhilarating to think about all the different options.) seems like a waste of time and a source of division, when we could be building a unified human race by focusing on sound facts, such as the affects of love on those around us. Imagine a world full of unconditional love and respect. If only.
At least we can experience that love from God, even if it’s inevitable that we as humans will fail in this area. I’m gonna try though.
I used to be a pretty hardcore creationist in the late 90’s. Fast forward to this past year, and the guy who taught me all that stuff has been convicted on multiple accounts of tax evasion because his literalist theology ironically isn’t literal enough to heed the “render unto Caesar” passage. Actually, I feel bad for the guy, although his martyr complex over the whole matter makes sympathy pretty difficult.
Anyway. No, I don’t think the earth’s age matters. I’m not a Creationist anymore, but nor am I a pure Evolutionist, either. The problem with Creationists is exactly what you pointed out above, Pastor: their confunded view of what revelation actually is. Both Creationism and Intelligent Design end up being the worst of both worlds: both bad theology and bad science. At least as far as the theology side of it goes, it is bad theology because they get things exactly backwards: using revelation to prove empirical facts; it’s as if God is only useful insofar as God shows us measurable things like that the earth is this many years old. Jesus becomes such an unimportant footnote to that. I remembered when I used to buy into this Creationist stuff it was (only looking back on it) as if all the invitations to accept Christ into my heart at the end of each of the creationist seminar tapes were so that Jesus could help me believe the “correct” (or are they) empirical facts about how dinosaurs and humans co-existed and that the Lochness monster is real.
I took science classes from professors here at PLNU who taught evolution, but they aren’t into scientism, and they don’t believe the earth happened by chance, but actually attempt to wrestle with some sort of theistic account of evolution in light of the continually creative hand of God. At the end of my first year, a professor summed it all up and said something like, “In the end, all this debate, doesn’t really matter. The debate is in no way salvific. You don’t get saved by believing in the right side of the debate; you get saved by believe in a person named Jesus, sent from the Father by the Spirit.”
To this day, I still know more from the Creationist “side” of things than I do from the evolutionary “side”, even though I’m mainly agnostic on the issue. I am, however, becoming increasingly aware of the fundamentalist atheists like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris, et. al. who actually are trying to persuade people with their polemical (and shoddy) books trying to tear down Christianity (or any belief at all) and argue for a kind of strict naturalism. The singer of Bad Religion is also into this, even though I still dig his tunes. Which reminds me.
This is a rather good book I read a couple of weekends ago inbetween Harry Potter novels:
Is Belief in God Good, Bad or Irrelevant?: A Professor And a Punk Rocker Discuss Science, Religion, Naturalism & Christianity
It was quite the lively and charitable discussion, considering these two guys have almost entirely different ways of viewing everything (except punk music).
Peace,
Eric
I love the observation: “as if all the invitations to accept Christ into my heart at the end of each of the creationist seminar tapes were so that Jesus could help me believe the “correct” [view]“. And this is my whole point. Why has the litmus shifted from a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, to, assent to a correct body of information. Ironically, one of the last strongholds of modernity is in the fundamentalist churches. The deification of the mind naturally leads to the elevation of ‘facts’ to the level of salvific status, and the Person is marginalized.
My feelings are that the age thing should even be on the table but that it is reasonable to discuss (for apologetics) the strengths/weakness of design vs. random. I wistfully wish that someone like Dawkins and someone like Morris (a young earther, if i remember correctly) could talk intelligently and rationally about the whole thing of origins.
Dawkins makes some good points in his material but I notice he often departs from science to indulge in scathing sarcasm, a technique which belies inadequate empirical data.
In the end, though, (as you say), questions of meaning trump questions of process every time.
Peace to you.
Victor
Something else that Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, C. Hitchens, et. al. do is make a leap from scientific observation into scientism (or, just plain ‘Naturalism’) to explain the rest of life; they turn scientific observation itself into a philosophy. And then, as you say, they interject scathing polemics which just undercuts their point further.
These are fun, if you get the time to read them:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5394
The first link is a review of Dawkin’s God Delusion by Terry Eagleton, and the second one is by David Bentley Hart reviewing Daniel Dennett’s latest. The D.B. Hart one is quite long, but brilliant.
Peace,
Eric
Thoroughly enjoyed Eagleton–amazingly perceptive yet balanced. I can think of more than a few Christian fundamentalists who wouldn’t like what he has to say at all.
Victor