The Universe Is How Old?
There is no shortage of debate concerning the age of earth within both Christian and Scientific communities. There are many books published by well qualified individuals on both sides of the debate, which only makes the discussion that much more complex. However, overwhelmingly the majority of scientists, Christian and otherwise hold that the universe is old, and while a bit younger, the earth is also pretty old compared to what seems to be the majority view within lay Christianity. This is not to suggest that there are no scientists who are also Christians, who also hold to a young earth, or that only lay church folk hold to a young earth view. That is not necessarily the case. It is true however, that if you ask the average church member, you will likely get a young earth view, while if you ask the average scientist, you will likely get the old earth view.
The standard agreed upon in the scientific community is that the universe is around 13 billion years old, and the earth is around 4 billion years old. While generally speaking, most Christians will argue for an earth that is less than 10,000 years old.
So What?
The debate for Christians usually lands on two fronts, the literal reading of Genesis and philosophically dealing with death before the fall in an old earth view. More often than not, in my experience, Christians also assume that evolution and an old earth view are the same thing. It is worth exploring these details and discussing the merits of both views. However, it is also worth making one important distinction and while we are at it, throwing out one possible solution to the death before the fall problem.
An Old Earth View Is Not Belief In Evolution:
Evolution is a very interesting discussion in its own right. The evolutionary view that won over was that of Charles Darwin. While he did not come up with the idea of evolution as some assume, his version which was based on natural selection was the version that eventually won out and is the version most of us grow up learning in biology class. The premise is that all life has a common ancestor and that natural selection is the mechanism that promotes decent with modification where the most beneficial traits are preserved, that is the traits that provide a reproductive advantage. These traits are passed down, and a simple explanation is offered, the fittest survive. We may rightly point out that even in Darwin's view that first organism was endowed with the ability to reproduce in the first place needs an explanation, but this is a conversation for another day.
The point is that just because a person holds to the possibility that the earth is old, even millions if not billions of years old, it does not follow that they are then committed to theories of evolutionary biology. These two ideas are completely different categories and while evolutionary theory does require lots of time, this in no way means that if it were given enough time with an old earth view that therefore it would be true. I personally lean more old earth, but I have very strong objections to the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the complex life forms we find on earth. Besides, evolution has nothing to say about how life began, the theory picks up once life is already on the scene. In summary, an old earth view is not belief in evolution.
Deadly Timing: Death Before The Fall?
If the curse from the fall was that man would surely die, then what do we do with death before the fall if the old earth view is proposed? First, as a Christian, I think there is something to say for the idea that all of creation will be redeemed, and part of that redemption is doing away with death as we know it. With that said, it seems entirely possible that there was death before the fall, not human death, but death no less. There is no denying that human death and the curse are related, but it seems possible that there was animal and plant death before the fall. The easy thing to accept is plant death. Animals and humans were eating plants before the fall, and this was certainly the case of death providing life. We can say yea, but plants are different, which is true, but if we can say plants are different, than can't we say animals are also different? First off, what did the shark eat originally? Do we have to come up with some extra biblical explanation for how the shark ate seaweed originally? And if so, does that mean that the shark and the lion evolved into carnivores after the fall?
I think plants are certainly different from humans, and their death before the fall poses no problem for the biblical literalist who objects to death before the fall. Then what about animal death before the fall? Animals are certainly different from plants and obviously also different from humans. But is there a biblical problem with animal death before the fall? It seems that the curse does in one way impact all of creation, but specifically man is told that he would die if he ate of the tree. We know evil was already in the world before the fall. Satan showing up and tempting Eve clearly shows us that this is true. So we can't say all evil is a result from the fall. In the same vein I would argue that it is possible that animal death isn't entirely the result of the fall. If we are consistent we would have to say some death preceded the fall, if only plant death, but if we are consistent then we also say sharks were vegetarians originally. The fossil records show animal life living and dying long before man shows up. But maybe all the scientists are wrong and they got all the geological dating wrong. It is possible. But maybe we really can't count the rings of trees, mine data in the ice cores from Antartica, or measure the universe in light years... Maybe... It is a lot to give up, and to me it seems unnecessary to pit the book of nature against the book of particular revelation. I say hold on to special creation, hold onto Scripture, but let us be careful to let each book speak as it was created to do, for they both have the same author. More on this topic later...
Rob
