SITEMAP for ORIGINS
Theology of Creation,
This page is part of
AGE OF THE EARTH (THEOLOGY)
and the sections in it are:
Appearance of Age in a "Young yet Mature" Creation
Theological Questions about Appearance of Age in Starlight
1857 — Appearance of Age in Creationism of the Early 1800s
NOW — Appearance of Age in Modern Young-Earth Creationism
Other Pages about "Apparent Age Theology"
Young-Earth Scientific Alternatives to Apparent Age Theology
God create with the appearance of age? by John Morris (President,
Institute for Creation Research) is a vigorous defense of apparent
age. (3 k)
• But a theological question is raised about The Integrity of God's Creation by Keith Miller, who doesn't think God would create nature with a misleading apparent history, because "God's creation, as a revelation to His creatures of who He is, should provide an accurate record of God's creative activity: of the way the universe actually was and is." (2 k)
• In quotations from The Genesis Flood, Henry Morris defends the honesty of creating a world with appearance of old age, because a young-and-mature creation "would necessarily have an appearance of some age." (8 k for Section 7, in a page from Creation Questions)
• The Appearance of Age: It's Morning in Creation-Land by Ken Miller, is a vigorous criticism. (11 k)
Are the defenses too strong — do they ignore some relevant questions? — and is the criticism, for similar reasons, also too strong?
In a young-yet-mature world created with apparent age, what kind of apparent history might we see? There are three possibilities: a minimal apparent
only the essential apparent age that
would be necessary for an immediately functional universe; a total apparent
history, including nonessential apparent
age, to show us everything
have happened" before
the instant of creation but never actually happened; or a partial apparent
history, between minimal and total.
• Apparent Age & Theology by Craig Rusbult, is a defense-and-criticism in an overview of these principles (asking "in a young universe, what kinds of false-ages would be essential and nonessential?") along with analysis of four views: apparent history (total, partial, minimal) and actual history. (26 k + 1k)
• DISTANT STARLIGHT and SCIENCE describes the simple arithmetic of starlight physics (distance/speed = time) and why young-earth explanations — by claiming an error in one of the terms (distance to stars, speed of light, time for light-travel) — are not scientifically credible.
• DISTANT STARLIGHT and THEOLOGY: Sometimes the details of starlight seem to be "telling a story" of a specific historical
event. For example, when scientists observe light that is changing in a detailed way corresponding
to the sequence of events during a supernova explosion, should they conclude
that this supernova-event really did occur, or that it's a pseudo-event and
is part of an elaborate apparent history (due to light being created in-transit by God) about events which
never really happened?
• Distant Stars and Apparent Age by Robert Shier, and A Detailed False History? by Deborah Haarsma & Loren Haarsma, describe how multiple details, in a wide variety of independent old-universe evidences, lead to theological questions. (2 k)
• Starlight & the Age of the Universe by Greg Koukl, explains that a functional recent creation does not require detailed appearance of age, and describes the "difficulties with details" for those who propose that God created a detailed apparent history, with events we see that never happened. (11 k + 1k)
• How can we see distant stars in a young universe? by young-earth advocates (Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland) writing for Answers in Genesis (AiG), is optimistic about one scientific alternative, but they criticize a theological explanation (made by some young-earth creationists) proposing detailed nonessential apparent age because "To create such a detailed series of signals in light beams reaching earth, signals which seem to have come from a series of real events but in fact did not, has no conceivable purpose. Worse, it is like saying that God created fossils in rocks to fool us, or even test our faith, and that they don’t represent anything real (a real animal or plant that lived and died in the past). This would be a strange deception." (15 + 2k) This page was AiG's answer to "the distant starlight problem" from 2001 to 2008, when it was replaced by a page (Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old? by Jason Lisle) with the same view of apparent age: "It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this. God made our eyes to accurately probe the real universe; so we can trust that the events that we see in space really happened. For this reason, most creation scientists believe that light created in-transit is not the best way to respond to the distant starlight argument." Instead he suggests several scientific solution, although he doesn't seem confident about any of them. (21 k)
In an earlier page on the website of AiG, Donald DeYoung says "the fourth suggestion [mature creation with appearance of age] is accepted by many creationists; it is a simple solution and is entirely consistent with the creation account" but this was in a book written independently (not for AiG) by DeYoung so it probably didn't
• I.O.U. — Later, we'll find some deeper discussions/defenses of Apparent Age by young-earth creationists, especially for the "nonessential appearance of age" that Henry Morris proposed but ICR (John Morris) ignores, and AIG (Ham, Sarfati, Wieland) criticizes. But finding this information could be difficult because most young-earth websites avoid the question of nonessential apparent age.
More about the Theology of Apparent Age
• Creation, Time, and Apparent Age by Clarence Menninga, is a theological perspective on time-and-history. (15 k) PSCF
• a starlight mystery (2 k + pictures) and question (2 k) by Hill Roberts
• if you want to explore more deeply, many posts (in 16 pages) are in The Mars-List Discussion on Creationism (total estimated at about 700 k)
• And due to space restrictions, many good pages cannot be included in this section; eventually, some of these will be in Additional Resources.
In this page you'll find links to resource-pages expressing a wide range of views, which don't necessarily represent the views of the American Scientific Affiliation. Therefore, linking to a page does not imply an endorsement by ASA. We encourage you to use your own critical thinking to evaluate everything you read.
This website for Whole-Person Education has TWO KINDS OF LINKS:
an ITALICIZED LINK keeps you inside a page, moving you to another part of it, and
a NON-ITALICIZED LINK opens another page. Both keep everything inside this window,
so your browser's BACK-button will always take you back to where you were.
This page, written by Craig Rusbult (editor of ASA Science
Ed Website), is
and was revised May 25, 2010
all links were checked-and-fixed on July 3, 2006