Pat Robertson rejects “young Earth” creationism
Pat Robertson yesterday dismissed the “young Earth” theory of creation. As reported in the Christian Post, Robertson stated, “I know people will probably lynch me for this, but Bishop (James) Ussher, God bless him, wasn’t inspired by the Lord when he said it all took 6,000 years. It just didn’t” (link) — Ussher is the 17th century Irish clergyman who first argued that the earth was created in 4004 B.C.E. “If you fight science,” Robertson stated, “you’re going to lose your children, and I believe in telling it they way it is” (source: The Huffington Post). The evangelist’s position mirrors the view of increasing numbers of religious conservatives, namely that the Earth is old.
Back when I was a student in the 1990s, I organized a debate at North Seattle Community College between an evolutionist and a creationist. With nearly 400 in attendance — a record for the college — the creationist asserted that creationism can support either the “young Earth” or “old Earth” theories. I must admit that I found his statement to be contradictory (science and the Bible cannot assert such disparate notions), but, nevertheless, I felt his comment was revealing. The plain truth is that not every Christian accepts the “young Earth” stance. More critically, the physical evidence does not support a 6,000-year-old Earth.
We Christians find ourselves in a bind. We are told in many churches that the Earth is but a few thousand years old, but, simultaneously, we are taught in schools and universities that the physical evidence shows the Earth to be billions of years old. Can both be true?
Holding contradictory positions results in what is known as cognitive dissonance — the discomfort one feels when one draws and maintains contradictory conclusions. Ultimately, a person will accept one conclusion and reject the other. So, a question worth discussing — openly — is, does the Bible allow for the “old Earth” interpretation of natural history?
Similar Posts:
- Gallup: Only 39 percent of Americans believe in evolution
- Vatican official calls atheist theories ‘absurd’
© 2012, Mark Adams. All rights reserved. For inquiries press here.
Mark,
It is definitely an issue that needs to be discussed more. As a thoughtful Christ follower who believes in the Scriptures, I want to be faithful to it’s authority. And I find plenty of evidence in the Scriptures and in observations of the earth and our solar system that would make me comfortable with a younger earth position (maybe not 4004 BC but less than billions of years too). But as an amateur astronomer i find some things out in the cosmos very puzzling and that require a lot of time. Something doesn’t add up and the “church’s” typical responses leave much to be desired in my opinion.
Over a decade ago, I read a short book by Dr. Russell Humphries, a christ-following physicist who found that using some of Einstein’s theories, particularly that of the “White Hole” and time dilation phenomena, he felt he could explain much of the confusion.
In short, is the universe young or old – he would say “yes. that depends upon where you are.” While earth need not be at the center of the universe, if the phenomena that God used to launch the universe were much like a White Hole, and if earth were relatively close to that event, then time would operate differently on each side of the event horizon. As it passed you, time would move slowly (or our normal) but on the other side, time would move very rapidly allowing for the outer universe to experience rapid aging and thus explaining much of the phenomena we observe – the the universe seems old even if the earth itself or our solar system doesn’t. As the event horizon continued out into the cosmos those areas that were “sped up” for a time would then pass time the same way we do and everything would look “normal.”
He was quick to say that if his computations held it would provide us w/ a way to somewhat satisfy young and old creationists alike (though undoubtedly it wouldn’t make them completely happy :p). The book/paper was to be presented at a Creation Science convention but I have never heard of any results … not in all this time.
I found his ideas intriguing to say the least. I get tired of people becoming afraid and tossing around the old “heretic” label if you bring up the topic. I don’t find that helpful at all my self. I know that the Bible was not intended to be a science textbook but even if you reduce science’s time estimates by 75% due to prejudices and preconceptions that prove faulty you still have way too big a difference between the young and old positions. Surely there must be a way to get to the truth?
EricOsborn
29 Nov 12 at 6:40 pm
Eric,
If anything, Robinson’s claim opens the door to a discussion about the claim that believing in the young earth is necessary for salvation. I’ve known creationists who’ve claimed you have to believe in a literal, six-day creation for salvation.
I’ve never considered such a belief an essential of the faith. I even know Christians who believe in the Cross and evolution. “The Language of God” by Francis Collins is an interesting book in this regard.
Mark
Mark Adams
6 Dec 12 at 9:24 am
Fellas,
Belief in a young earth is not a salvation issue. The notion that it is contradicts so much Scripture, as you well know. Correct the brother that thinks it is- it’s your duty.
But what does the Bible say? What did Jesus say about the age of the Earth? (Matthew 19:4)
Does Pat think the Bible teaches an ancient earth? I can’t imagine he does.
It’s not the Bible that is telling him the Earth and the universe is billions and billions of years old- it’s certain sinful, fallen men with a rather limited perspective using a whole range of untestable assumptions. Their pontifications are not dictates of operational science (repeatable and observable, and using the scientific method) but of forensic/historical “science” (not directly testable or observable and laden with unprovable materialistic assumptions, speculation and metaphysics).
Here are two potent questions: If God wanted to tell us the earth is old (actually it is, 6-10K is old!) what kind of language would one expect Him to use? What language DID He use?
Definitely not Francis Collins’ “language”.
If death before the first man Adam is any part of an “ancient earth” idea one might entertain, then that idea is a no-go… death before Adam is a deal breaker for the Bible and the gospel.
There are so many reasons, theologically and scientifically speaking, that the Earth cannot be “ancient” (death issue aside) that it is staggering. Yet all we hear about from the world and its media is ‘millions and billions of years’, to the censorship of (scientific) information that invalidates the notion. One quick example is the ‘Distant Starlight’ argument. It is publicly paraded about the populace like a Libyan child-soldier’s assault rifle, without bothering to mention the “Big Bang’s” own version of a light-travel-time “problem” (the Horizon Problem).
All this ancient earth stuff, and how it could/might be ancient, has all long been hashed-out. There is NOTHING new under the sun. It all goes back to the Garden… ‘sssssssss Did God really say that?’
MatthewStewart
30 Dec 12 at 11:00 pm
“More critically, the physical evidence does not support a 6,000-year-old Earth.”
Mark, I think you should refrain from saying this- it implies that you definitively know. I know you don’t claim that. You seem to be saying: “The plain truth, more critically, is the physical evidence does not support a 6,000 year-old Earth.
What physical evidence, I might add? What about all the physical evidence that does (ie. Earth’s magnetic field, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n4/decaying-magnetic-field )?
Let’s hang out soon- can’t wait to hear what you’ve been working on musically.
MatthewStewart
30 Dec 12 at 11:21 pm