HI Hquest...
This is a great topic for discussion. We have discussed issues similar to this in the past, but little could be decided upon as far as material that provides a good answer to critics.
I must admit: Much of the “defending a young Earth” rhetoric out there just doesn’t pass the test of academic or scientific scrutiny. I went to a Creation Research Institute seminar a few months ago in Northern California (during a Christian music festival, no less). Although the speaker probably meant well, he gave a poor answer to his beliefs. This probably had something to do with his limited understanding of science (his degree was in theology, I think) and his “[i]Evolutionists just don’t get it[/i]” remarks.
That being said, I do believe in a young Earth. However, most Christians promote the idea of a young Earth by attacking what they think is the main reason to NOT believe in a young Earth…carbon dating. While carbon dating is a preferred method of dating things here on Earth (and is certainly flawed, sketchy science), it is not the main reason that most scientists believe that the Earth is billions of years old. As an undergraduate student, I interned for NASA Langley Research Center in Virginia. I met and worked with many scientists and engineers. Believe it or not, some of them are believers! Yet many of them cannot allow themselves to “believe” in God…simply because their notions of science block the way.
Astrophysicists base most of their understanding about the age of the Earth (and universe, for that matter) on the distance of stars. Remember what we were taught in school? When we look up at the stars, we are seeing how they looked in the [u]distant[/u] past. In other words, those stars might not even be there anymore…but we wouldn’t know it, since we are at such a vast distance! We are literally viewing light “waves” that emitted from those stars a long time ago.
Our closest galactic neighbor was discovered in 2003…at a distance of approximately 42,000 light years away. That is extremely close to scientists. However, a light year is the distance that light travels in one year. Since light travels 186,000 miles per second, then you can imagine the distance that it takes for light to travel in 42,000 YEARS. That is a long, long way. According to scientists that I know, they refuse to accept the notion that God created the universe 6000 years ago…because light has reached our planet that traveled a much great distance than could be achieved in 6000 years!
So how do those of us who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis (and it’s idea of a much, much younger Earth) account for this? There are several possibilities.
One is that the Earth was created and God sped up the speed of all light….so that it appeared instantaneously to the Earth. Thus, when we look up at the stars…we are seeing them at a much closer rate (in regard to time and distance).
Another thing is to consider that the possibilities of flaws within our understanding of the universe. The great “leap” in physics (particularly, astrophysics) was Einstein’s theories of relativity and special relativity. In his theory of relativity, Einstein taught that space is not a giant open vacuum, but that space is “bent” (or “curved”) by gravity. Gravity is simply caused by mass in space. This is how spacecraft can gain velocity by “slingshotting” around the moon or other planets. There is a bend around such objects. According to Einstein, these “bends” are everywhere in space where mass can be found. Since, according to scientists, 80% of the universe is filled with unseen “dark matter,” these bends might be EVERYWHERE.
This theory of relativity is enhanced by the concept of special relativity. We all remember Einstein’s E=mc² equation for special relativity. In short, a major component to both of these postulates lay in the notion that Einstein believed that neither time nor distance (space) was a universal constant. Rather, Einstein theorized that the only constant was the speed of light. According to Einstein, light could neither speed up nor slow down. It is a moving particle that is shot out at the same, constant speed every single time. But what if this idea is flawed?
What do I mean…flawed? First of all, if space is filled with “bends,” then time is relative according to our perspective on the path along the bend (relativity). For instance, we can view a person on a train throw a ball at 10 miles per hour. To those on the train, it travels at 10 mph. But to a person standing outside the train…along the tracks…the blur would seem to be 70mph (10mph on the train…and 60mph as the train speeds along the tracks). But it doesn’t stop there! To a person riding in a train going the opposite direction (at the same speed), the ball now appears to be traveling at least 140 mph (60mph of the first train…plus 10mph for the ball…and another 60mph of our train for our train…and another 10mph for the perspective of the ball). It continues! To a person sitting in space…with a powerful telescope (if such a thing existed), that ball is traveling 1070mph (1000 mph for the rotation of the Earth + 60 mph for the train speed + 10 mph for the speed of the ball). In other words, the “speed” is relative to our perspective.
Yet Einstein’s theory of relativity is based upon a notion that there are no constants except the speed of light. But what is [i]speed[/i]? It is distance divided by time. Miles/Hour. Kilometers/Hour. Miles/Second. etc… How can this be a [i]constant[/i] when it is based upon two supposedly NON-constants? This is something to think about.
In addition, we should consider that since the universe is filled with bends in space/time, then light does not travel in a straight line. It is traveling along those bends. The more bends…the further the distance that it must travel. This notion is seldom discussed by physicists. It causes one to wonder whether or not light (and the distance/age of the universe) can adequately be measured by light triangulation in the first place! If light is constantly traveling around these bends…then those objects might be much closer than they might appear (on account of those bends + more distance but same speed). This is just something to deeply consider.
Most theoretical physicists actually believe in the concept of endless parallel universes! They have their reasons…and some of them are based on relativity and/or accepted scientific theory. However, it takes a whole lot more [i]faith[/i] to believe in such things than to believe in an omnipotent God who created all things.
In terms of evolution, there are some remarkable things being explored right now! Contrary to what some believers proclaim, the current understanding of science seems to actually embrace the notion of evolution. It isn’t pseudo-science. It is a theory based upon principles. Of course, we know that there are flaws in the entire notion of evolution. But we need to not dismiss the observations. Evolutionists claim to have partially observed micro-evolution…when they believe leads to macro-evolution.
There is quite a bit of debate over this. People do evolve in one way or another (not from apes, mind you). Science is providing insight into the study of human changes (and animal changes) through the epigenome. A recent study showed that men who were starving at the time of the conception of their children…actually passed on a strong correlation to longer life spans that was identifiable in their grandchildren. On the flip side, women who were starving at the time of the conception of their children seemed to pass on shorter life expectancies to their grandchildren. In other words, a direct statistical correlation exists that shows that human beings can change very rapidly…rather than through evolution’s call for thousands (or millions) of years. Potentially, a man who engages in farm work…skin darkened by the sun…will have grandchildren with more pigmentation in their skin. The opposite is also true. An African male…raised in a cold, less UV-exposed environment, can have grandchildren with a lighter shade of skin color.
This is emerging science. I watched a documentary where the acclaimed geneticists who realized these statistical correlations (with mathematical charts) literally wept…because they felt they had stumbled upon something so contrary to established scientific thought! Our behavior, they explained, can have massive consequences upon our very grandchildren! This, they elucidated, could explain just why certain diseases (and epidemics) like cancer or autism seemed to pop up out of no where! There are some scientists who think that our habits, lifestyles, personality, addictions, physical abilities/limitations and even memories are passed through the epigenome at the time of conception! They argue that what men call “instinct” (like a newborn who knows to feed on its mother’s milk) is literally infused via genetic inheritance into the brain’s memory.
These sort of emerging breakthroughs in science are revealing just how much we don’t know about science. We have so much left to learn…so many mysteries to be revealed. So then, how does mankind so easily dismiss its Maker?
As a youth, I was quite an agnostic. I wasn’t an atheist, because I really didn’t know what to believe. I was acutely aware of the limitations to my own understanding. I was what Ravi Zacharias called an “honest agnostic” (one who doesn’t pretend to know for a certainty about the non-existence of God). I was raised “in Church” (meaning my parents went and forced me to attend with them…and pray over meals…abstain from sin, etc…). But in all honesty, I truly thought that evolution and the age of the universe were certain enough to discredit the idea of the Genesis story.
This changed during high school. I arrived to a point where I began to “[i]lean not on my own understanding[/i].” This isn’t to say that I discarded my education or knowledge of science, math, etc… It simply means that my unbelief slowly dissipated toward knowledge of my own ignorance of the universe and the things of eternity. I recognized that if there was a God…then I was in a lot of trouble…because I didn’t know Him. It wasn’t that I rejected Him. I simply did not know Him…nor did I reach out to Him…or search for Him with diligence.
This all culminated when I was a teenager at summer camp. I was so miserable in the knowledge that I did not have peace with a God that I wasn’t even sure existed. I remember standing out alone in a field…while many of the youth seemed to be so happy or nonchalant in their lives. Yet I was so dry…like a desert that had never known water. I don’t remember why…but I somehow realized that I could try praying to God…and that He would likely hear me if I called out to Him in truth. I remember walking out in the field for this endeavor…when suddenly…I knew that the Lord spoke to my heart. “[i]You don’t know me[/i].” This was so real…that I did not know…nor had ever reached out to know…the Creator of the Universe – who sees/hears/knows me at every moment of every day. I was overwhelmed by the understanding of the omnipotence of God! That is when I fell upon my face and cried out to Him…pouring out my heart like a drink…telling Him, “[i]I would give everything that I am…and everything that I will ever be…if I could just know You…and be Your friend[/i].” I was keenly aware that God heard me…and that I was new…born all over again.
Of course, this had a deep impact on my persona. I had just met the Creator of the Universe! Nothing mattered except to know Christ! If I lived…or if I died…it didn’t matter. All that mattered was that I knew Him and could spend time with Him!
Yet my education remained. However, I began to become skeptical of all things. I viewed science as man’s attempt to understand the methods and laws established by God. Not all of it is flawed…and some of it is very true. Yet most scientists try to learn the laws of the universe without embracing the Creator of those laws. In fact, some have dismissed the notion that a Creator exists! For them, scientific laws of nature (or physics) are the end…and not the means. This understanding of scientific law became their god. We, as human beings, are so little…and it is an amazing thing to suppose that we “know” enough to dismiss our very Creator! There are so many things that we do not know…do not understand.
Unfortunately, most believers who try to persuade scientists (or even regular people who embrace evolution or an ancient earth) simply do not have an understanding of what laws we do know (or theories for why some things work the way they do). It is almost embarrassing to be with believers who pronounce their notions of science to skeptical, well informed agnostics. It makes me cringe to hear people (like the CRI guy) explain to a room some notion of science that just doesn’t make sense.
If we are going to be prepared to explain “our side of the story” to skeptics, we need to understand just what we believe. If we aren’t sure, then we really need to keep quiet. We don’t want to add fuel to the stereotype about “ignorant” believers who the world just dismisses as being “gullible enough” to believe in an omnipotent God.
:-)
