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
No comments:
Post a Comment