Old Universe or Young Universe?

I have been doing some reading lately about cosmology.  Cosmology is essentially the study of the universe's origin.  There is a debate within Christian circles that has been heating up lately as to whether the universe, and consequently the earth, is old (about 15 billion years) or young (6-10 thousand years).  

Now right off I want to make clear that this is probably not the single most important issue, at least on the surface.  It is not essential for a believer in Jesus Christ to hold to a young universe or old universe model in order to be rescued from his or her sinful state.  Simply, an abiding faith in Jesus' sacrifice and saving power is sufficient to deliver a soul from spiritual death.  

So what's the big deal?  Should it really matter if the universe is young or old?

Perhaps not from a strictly soteriological perspective (having to do with salvation) but the issue touches on more than just salvation.  Specifically, the subject of Biblical authority is at issue.  If the Genesis account of a 6 day creation is just a metaphor and not a literal record, why does the text indicate with such emphasis that each day was comprised of "evening and morning?"  Of course this could  be taken as a figurative indication of the beginning and cessation of a given time period, but what would lead us to consider it to be such?  Would we take the text to be figurative if modern scientific conjecture was not indicating that the universe was in fact billions of years old?  I don't think so.

If the Genesis record of creation is a metaphor would we begin to suggest that the miracles of the Exodus or even the miracles of Christ are just a metaphor for some spiritual lesson?  Or worse, manmade stories?  What about Noah's flood?  

For what it's worth, both young and old universe proponents have compelling evidence and physical difficulties with regard to their view of the age of the universe.  This, in effect, brings me to what I really want to talk about, namely the presuppositions that tend to guide those engaged in these contests.

Presuppositions are what we believe before we engage a given topic.  One could simply break down the word: pre (before) supposition (belief) simply means to believe beforehand.  Said differently, a presupposition is what we take for granted to be true.  Any worldview is built upon a set of presuppositions so it would be silly to assert that a person should be devoid of them.  But is there a set of presuppositions that we should hold to as believers in the God of the Bible?

Why does a Christian believe that God created the heavens and the earth?  That's easy!  The Bible says so and he believes the Bible.  Why does a Christian believe that Jesus died for the sins of mankind?  Similarly, the bible clearly testifies that He did.  So why would a Christian believe that the universe is billions of years old?  Because the Bible says so?  No, the Bible gives no straight forward indication that the universe is old.  In fact, the Bible would seem to indicate that the universe and the earth are both quite young.  A plain reading of the text of the creation record would seem to indicate that a week was set apart for the supernatural act of making the universe "out of nothing."  The genealogies of the Bible would support a "young" creation. 

Why are so many Christians (some I have a great deal of respect for) asserting that the universe and the earth are billions of years old?  Is it because of a firm conviction that the Bible is the Word of God?  No, it's not the Bible that they get this information from; rather scientific assertions are driving the agenda.  Scientists have been asserting that the evidence indicates a universe that is billions of years old and consequently an old earth too.  

Now I have a question: Do those scientists have a firm conviction that the Bible is the Word of God?  Don't get me wrong, I know there are God fearing scientists who believe that the universe is old.  That isn't my point.  My question probes for the underlying philosophy that governs the interpretation of the evidence that scientists see.  What worldview is dictating the terms of interpretation?  What are the presuppositions that are the underpinning of the interpretation of the evidence that we see?

Evidence is neutral.  Presuppositions are not neutral and everyone has them.  Right or wrong we all have an intellectual set of assumptions that we bring to any forensic evaluation.  There are basically two different kinds of science.  One is what we could call observable or experiential science.  It deals with what we see and it's pretty straight forward.  We draw conclusions based on what we can verify through repeated experimentation.  The other kind is what we could call investigative or forensic science.  This is more the work of a detective who is trying to figure out what happened when observation is impossible.  In forensic science personal assumptions play a very large role in the interpretation of the evidence presented.  Cosmology is largely an investigative science.

A person who is committed to a philosophy called "Naturalism" would be someone who believes that the material universe is all there is.  Such a person would disregard the Biblical record of creation at the outset because of a pre-commitment to his guiding philosophy - Naturalism.  It would matter very little if a committed naturalist was looking at compelling evidence for a young creation because his worldview would cause him to interpret the data in harmony with what he or she already believed.  The same can be said of the proponent of a "young" creation as well.  Both parties would see evidence through different lenses and come to a different conclusion.

I once read that a respected Christian apologist commented on the observed supernova of 1987 saying that it is proof that the universe is billions of years old (primarily because of light speed constraints and the great distance of the supernova).  He went on to say that it would be deceptive of God to allow a supernova to appear to happen if the universe was in fact only a few thousand years old.  God would have had to create the "appearance" of a dying star without the star actually existing, because the light would take much longer to reach earth than the young earth creation record would allow for.

I puzzled over this comment for a while.  

What if God actually told us how and when creation took place?  Would He still be deceptive?  How could God be said to be deceptive if He simply told us what He did?  It seems to me the issue is whether we have the faith to believe Him or not.  Must a person conclude that the universe is billions of years old?  What is the reason for this "necessity?"  Is it the "evidence?"

I would submit that it is not the evidence that is doing the speaking as much as the commitment to naturalistic philosophy that is guiding many scientists.  Naturalism is essentially an atheistic philosophy.  Why would a committed Christian adopt an atheistic guiding philosophy?  Peer pressure?  I'm not sure, but it seems that this issue of young or old universe is not going away anytime soon.  Am I just an uneducated odd-ball for believing the Genesis record of special creation to have taken place in a literal 6 days?   I don't think so.

There is a lot of evidence for a young universe.  Comets, lack of certain kinds of supernovae, moon dust, red shift, uniform galactic distribution and a host of data can certainly affirm a young universe.  It really depends on how you choose to view the evidence, and that has everything to do with the presuppositions you start your investigation with.  Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?  Do you think it's possible that God could have created the "Heavens and the Earth" in just 6 days?  Would an atheistic assumption be sufficient to make you doubt what God said?

Perhaps more of us should try seeing the universe through the lens of Biblical authority.   The evidence for the special creation of all things is compelling.  You just have to be willing to see it.

Rick Carver is the Associate Director for the AIIA Institute

Contact us at aiiainstitute.org

Critical Thinking and the Contemporary Christian

So what comes to mind with you hear the term "critical thinking"?  Does your mind conjure images of a scowling face and an irritated disposition?  The term just sounds contentious, doesn't it?

Well, critical thinking and a contentious, hard to please attitude are not synonymous.  In fact they are quite different.  Among other things Christians are instructed to avoid being contentious (Titus 3:9).  On the other hand critical thinking is actually encouraged in Scripture.

What is critical thinking?

First we need to settle that critical thinking is "thinking" or simply put, reasoning.  Perhaps in the wake of the Reformation and the battle cry, "Sola Fide" (By Faith Alone), Christians have begun to accept an inaccurate disparity (inequality) between faith and knowledge.  A lot can happen in 500 years.  In the minds of many today, faith is totally separate from knowledge or reason.  Of course they are different, and identifiable, but are they totally separable?

In a lecture at the Edinburgh Science Festival, Richard Dawkins, a respected evolutionary biologist, has said that, "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."  Such a comment embodies a sentiment that faith and knowledge, or perhaps more accurately, faith and reason, are unrelated and even incompatible.  This sentiment is severely distorted and Dawkins' assertion is patently false.  Let's think about this.

First, take a look at the word faith.  What is it?  When we say, "faith in God", we are not saying the same thing as if we were speaking of the Christian "faith".  The word "faith" can have different meanings relating to its context.  This may seem insignificant, but it is not.  "Having faith in God", is essentially the same as saying, "having trust in God".  If we boil it down, faith, in this sense, is simply trust or confidence.

Why would a person trust someone else?  Are there limits to that trust?  Are there conscious reasons to trust or to distrust someone?  These questions illuminate the major point here.  We choose to trust, or not to trust, based on information that we have processed through our minds.  In other words, the reasoning process is the basis for our choices to trust anything or anyone.  Have you ever seen a person who exhibited absolutely zero trust in anything?  Such a person would either be unconscious, undeveloped or dead.  Everyone who chooses to trust or distrust does so for a reason.  Whether those reasons are good ones or not is another question.  And how would we test those reasons for trusting in someone or something?  We would begin the reasoning process or more to the point, engage critical thought.


I'm not suggesting that every act of confidence or faith is a conscious one.  Often our choices are unconscious and habitual.  But unlike the animal kingdom we can determine to act contrary to our natural inclinations by virtue of our will.  Consider that a banker may choose to loan money to a person against his initial reaction!  Again, he would not do this arbitrarily for he would need to investigate the situation to see if circumstances warrant such a risk.  Good bankers make good decisions and they arrive at those decisions through the process of critical thought.  Conversely, bankers who did not investigate an application, would be subject to much poorer outcomes. Similarly, we execute trust in others for real and conscious reasons. Critical thinking is simply the process of determining what is true, what is false, what is good and what is bad.  Our choices are based on what we perceive to be true and how we desire to respond to that truth.  It must also be stated that some people simply do not want to trust God and choose to disbelieve in Him.  This has nothing to do with the truth of God's existence and is relegated to the assertion of the will of a person.  Though people will attempt to misrepresent the facts in order to justify their decisions along this line, a critical investigation of the evidence will bring a great deal of illumination to the subject.

Thinking and feeling are not the same.  There is a difficulty when people begin to accept a redefinition of the word faith to infer a feeling.  A person could exhibit faith or trust for a variety of reasons, personal inclination being one of those reasons.  I'm sure to some extent, that "blind faith" does exist, but it is not good, it is not necessary and it should be rejected by Christians today as the basis for their faith in God.  A person who believes in God because he feels like it, will likely cease to believe when he feels the inclination to give up.  The statistics accumulated regarding the so called "deconversion" rates seem to support this notion.  A choice to trust, motivated solely by personal feelings, is not based on sound judgment and is shaky at best.  How many human relationships have crumbled because of this sort of thing?  Faith is a type of commitment to what is perceived to be true.  It is a consciously placed trust for reasons that have been discerned; the better the reasons, the stronger the platform for faith.

I must offer a brief word regarding the mystery of the Holy Spirit and the sovereign grace of God.  It must be understood that the Bible does teach that God is the initiator in the regeneration (born-again) process of the believer.  It is God who gives the ability to believe or have faith (Eph 2:8-9).  Nevertheless, this does not entail that a person loses his will or his ability to discern, reason, think critically, investigate or what have you.  It only means that God is the giver of life and once given, the recipients become the ones who live that life.  Yes the mystery of the Spirit's work is present in enabling faith. This ought not to take anything away from our being the persons who execute that faith.  We were created to be, thinking, reasoning individuals whose faith is based in sound judgment.

Why are so many falling away from the faith today?  A trite answer here will not do.  I will offer that many today are not being taught to think critically about the claims of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Bible, and the historic and scientific witnesses to those claims.  Few even bother to test those claims to see if they are true.  The result has been a redefined "faith" that is based on an experience, relationship or some criteria other than the Truth that proclaims itself ontologically (by virtue of itself).

The Bible commends the Bereans for being "more fair-minded" (Acts 17).  Why were they considered thus?  Because they investigated the Apostle Paul's gospel message to see if it was true.  What they felt about his message was secondary to what was true, and they sought to determine what really was true.  They began to critically examine the message of the gospel against the Scriptures.  They began thinking critically about the gospel to determine if it was true or not.

While there may be Christians today who have a "blind" faith in God, the Bible in no way commends this.  On the contrary, God speaking to his people through the prophet, Isaiah says, "Come let us reason together." (Isa. 1:18).  Critical thought is a gift from God and is what informs our decision to place faith in the Son of God.  Richard Dawkins is terribly mistaken.  Faith in Christ is first reasonable, and then it is personal.  If anyone should doubt this, he need only check out the facts.  Many who have who have set out to objectively prove Christianity false, have come face to face with the Truth, only to offer their lives to God in a sacred trust that He is, in fact, who He revealed Himself to be.

The time has come for contemporary Christians to take up the mantle of critical thought once again.  Perhaps we will again see a stamina among believers that ultimately provides the greatest testimony to the truth we can offer--our lives given in obedience to the King of Glory, expressly because of the informed faith that we have in Him.

So let me ask you, "Why are you a Christian?"

Is it because your friends are?  Is it because you grew up a "Christian"?  Is it because you have a great church?  Is it because you simply feel inclined to be one?

Or is it because you are convinced that His claims are true and that He is in fact, the Lord...your Lord, and because of this, you have chosen to serve Him?

Which is the surer foundation?  No doubt the latter one is but in order to be convinced that He is who He claims to be, you will need more than a blind, mechanistic trust.  You will need to think it through.  Are the reasons you do trust Him, good reasons?  Will they stand a time of testing?

So, what do think?  Why do you believe?

PR