Age of the Universe:
Why does it matter?

by Craig Rusbult, Ph.D.

This is Part 2 in a series, so you should first read the condensed introductory version of this page in Part 1.

When a person who believes "if the Bible is true, the earth is young" looks at the scientific evidence, often the conclusion is that "since the earth is not young, the Bible is not true," and faith is weakened or abandoned.  The main reason "it does matter" is people, but (so it can end with people) Section 4 begins with practical consequences for society.

    4. Why does it matter?

    Practical Results in Science and Education
    In the past four decades, since the revival of flood geology beginning in 1961, the most influential proponents of young-earth views have insisted on framing the origins question as "Christianity versus atheism" with Christianity represented by only young-earth creation, with old-earth creation and theistic evolution excluded from consideration.
    Of course, proponents of evolution are happy to accept this "two model" competition, since it makes evolution seem more plausible.  If there are only two alternatives, old-earth evolution and young-earth creation, scientific evidence for an old earth (and for basic "patterns of progression" in the fossil record) becomes evidence for evolution, which is given a higher status than it deserves.  In the two-model competition promoted by evolutionists and young-earth creationists, the elimination of old-earth creation allows a shift in focus that favors evolution.  Scientifically, old-earth evolution seems extremely plausible when compared with young-earth creation, due to the extremely strong scientific support for an old earth.  But when old-earth evolution is compared with old-earth creation, "age of the earth" questions become irrelevant so we can focus on "design in biology" questions, and the scientific weaknesses of neo-Darwinian evolution then become apparent.
    In education, science teachers have been wary of young-earth creationism because of its obvious connections with religion, and because it challenges the abundant evidence for an old universe in many areas of science — not just in biology, but also in physics and astronomy, and especially in geology.  Science teachers want to teach science that is well supported by evidence and logic, and they have not been enthusiastic about teaching their students that young-universe theories are scientifically credible, worthy of serious consideration in a science classroom.  In the past few decades, criticisms of evolution usually have been combined with young-universe theories (because anti-evolution and pro-evolution extremists have both insisted on a two-model approach), and a reluctance to teach the combined "package deal" has resulted in a reluctance to question evolution.  This reluctance has contributed to difficulties in getting teachers (and textbooks) to ask critical questions about evolution and to consider theories of intelligent design, even though modern design theories, developed in their current form mainly in the 1990s, are scientifically credible and educationally useful.
    In addition, the educational legislation supported by proponents of young-earth creation has led to unfortunate legal consequences, and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that young-earth "creation science" is based on religion, not science.  Now there is a danger that theories of design — which are based on science, not religion, and would have been less likely to be viewed with suspicion if there had been no legal precedents involving young-earth creation — can be "painted with the same brush" and declared illegal.  Or, even though the actual legal situation for "teaching design" is far more favorable to "critical thinking about evolution" than is commonly realized, design can be excluded from the classroom in policy decisions (at the local, state, and national levels) due to concerns about a "package deal" that also — due to past experiences and associations, not the educational recommendations actually being made by proponents of design (*) — involves a young earth.  The concern is that if they allow criticisms of evolution into the classroom, young-earth flood geology and astronomy will soon follow.  { * Unfortunately, sometimes these ideas still do get mixed together into a single package.  This happened in 1999 in Kansas, where the state school board's criticisms of neo-Darwinian evolution were combined with criticisms of conventional old-earth geology and old-universe astronomy. }

    In the past four decades, what have been the practical results of young-earth creationism?
    1) an increase in the perceived plausibility of evolution, which in a two-model scientific competition will "win points" simply because it proposes an old universe; 
    2) a decrease in the willingness of science teachers to criticize evolution, because they don't want to give credibility to the young-universe theories that usually have accompanied criticisms of evolution, and because they assume that the legal prohibitions against teaching young-earth creationism apply to any serious questioning of evolution.
 

    Should the gospel be linked with a young earth?
    Is a young earth essential for the gospel of Jesus?  According to prominent creationists, their young-earth interpretation of the Bible is necessary to provide a solid historical and theological foundation for Christianity.  They claim that "if the Bible is true, the earth is young" and even that "if the earth is old, the Gospel is false."  For example:  The whole message of the Gospel falls apart if one allows millions of years for the creation of the world.  /  Old-earth thinking is incompatible with the work of Christ." (Ken Ham, John Morris; sources and extended quotations)
    But it doesn't seem wise to link a young earth with the Gospel of Jesus by implying (or directly stating, as in the bold declarations above) that "either both are true, or both are false."  Why?

    First, this link doesn't seem justified.  There are valid reasons, based on careful linguistic and theological reasoning, for adopting old-earth interpretations of Genesis.  Although a belief that "God created everything" is essential, belief in a young earth is not.  A young-earth theory should never be elevated into a fundamental doctrine like the resurrection of Jesus.  In 1 Corinthians 15:14, Paul correctly links The Resurrection with The Gospel: "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."  But I don't think he would make a similar claim for a young earth (*) because the full gospel of Jesus — including his deity, virgin birth and sinless human life, substitutionary atonement on the cross, death and resurrection, ascension into heaven, and second coming — is fully compatible with an old earth.  And for each person, a recognition of personal sin and the need for personal salvation depends on the Holy Spirit (John 16:8-11) working in the human heart, reinforcing the conclusions of a healthy human conscience (Romans 2:14-16).
    * a clarification:  Some young-earth proponents do seem to claim, as in the quotes above, that "if the earth is not young, the gospel cannot be true."  For an individual, however, their claim is that young-earth beliefs are necessary as a foundation for correct Christian theology and doctrines, but are not necessary for salvation, so they wouldn't say that "if you don't believe in a young earth, your faith in Jesus is useless."

    Second, if a person who thinks the Bible requires a young earth examines the scientific evidence and concludes "the earth is old," another conclusion may be that "if the Bible is wrong about the earth's age, maybe it's also wrong about the rest," and faith is weakened or abandoned. (*)  Therefore, Christians should not encourage (and should not accept) any implication — whether it is made by fellow Christians whose intention is to strengthen the Gospel, or by non-Christians who want to discredit the Gospel — that "if the earth is not young, the Bible is not true and Jesus is not our lord and savior."
    * The process of reasoning can be summarized using if-if-then logic:  Due to the recent popularity of young-earth ideas, many Christians (and potential Christians) are faced with a difficult decision based on the logic that "IF a true Bible requires a young earth, and IF the earth is not young, THEN the Bible is not true."  Each person has three options:  1) accept both IFs and reject the Gospel;  2) reject the second IF (the old-earth evidence in nature) and retain belief in a young earth and the Bible;  3) reject the first IF (a link between the Bible and a young earth) and accept both the scientific evidence and the Bible.
    Each of these choices is made by many people:  Henry Morris has chosen #2;  for me #3 was easy, but for others it is possible only after intense personal struggle;  and sadly, sometimes the result is #1.  Ed, a former young-earth creationist, explains how to avoid the spiritual tragedy of #1: "If R [a friend who discarded his faith when faced with the if-if-then dilemma] had been offered an alternative [#3] from the beginning, he would never have experienced the turmoil he went through.  When R could no longer deny that the universe was billions of years old, the only option left for him [because he continued to believe, as he had been taught, that the Bible required a young earth] was to deny the Bible."  /  Hill Roberts, head of the "Lord, I Believe" outreach ministry, says: "Some of my well-meaning brethren wish we would just drop all aspects of time discussions from our presentations.  That would certainly be the easy way.  Todd [a former young-earth believer who, like "R", decided to stop believing in the Bible and Jesus when he was confronted with the if-if-then dilemma] is why we cannot go that way."  /  Joshua Zorn, a missionary involved in church planting, describes his experience as a former believer in the young-earth teaching that "creates a nearly insurmountable barrier between the educated world and the church," and that has a virtual monopoly in overseas missions.  He explains why, as an evangelist, he is worried because "we are sowing the seeds of a major crisis which will make the job of world evangelism even harder than it is already."  Therefore, "from the mission field, to pastors and leaders of the sending churches," he makes "An Urgent Appeal for Humility in Addressing the Question of the Age of the Earth."  (longer quotations, and sources)  /  Another way that "we are sowing the seeds of a major crisis" is the virtual monopoly of young-earth teaching in home schools, which may result in a multitude of "if-if-then" dilemmas (like those faced by Ed, R, and Todd) in the near future.

    With an old-earth view, compatibility between science and scripture can occur in two ways.  First, old-earth views are compatible with a belief that the Bible is inerrant (is correct in everything, including faith and conduct, history and science). *  Second, old-earth views are compatible with a belief that the Bible is infallible (is correct in everything it teaches about faith and conduct).  Those who believe the Bible is infallible don't accept a "slippery slope" argument which claims that if a person moves a little bit from a literalist extreme (of believing everything that a literal interpretation might seem to imply) there is no way to avoid sliding into disbelief (by not believing everything that is clearly taught about saving faith and saintly conduct) and ending up at the other extreme (of not believing any of the historical and spiritual claims made in the Bible).
    * For example, in 1982 the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy affirmed that "in some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations."  And they decided, by agreement of all members except Henry Morris, that they should not include a 144-hour creation as an essential component of a fundamentalist belief in inerrancy.
 

    Truth and Theory, Humility and Respect
    In the area of origins, emotions can rise due to disagreements among people who feel strongly about important issues, who are trying to find the truth and share it with other people.  In the current climate of controversy, our personal interactions will be more enjoyable and productive if we recognize the rationality of other positions, adopt an attitude of respectful humility that honors the dignity of individuals holding those positions, remember that ideas and people are both important, and try to understand why others "may also have good reasons, both intellectual and ethical, for believing as they do." (quoted from a page about Understanding and Respect)
    Treating others with respect will be easier if we develop an appropriate humility when estimating the certainty of our own theories about theology and science.  But appropriate humility is difficult to define and achieve.  It requires a balance between two desirable qualities — confident faith (which if overdeveloped can become obnoxiously rude arrogance) and cautious humility (which can become timidly bland relativism) — that are in tension.  When we're discussing origins, however, most of us tend to err in the direction of overconfidence in our own theories, so trying to develop the virtue of modest caution usually has a beneficial effect.
    Among proponents of young-earth theories, attitudes span a wide spectrum.  Some (such as Ham, Morris, and Morris, in the quotes above) are certain that their interpretation of the Bible is correct, and that anyone who disagrees with them is certainly wrong.  Others (such as Paul Nelson & John Mark Reynolds, in Three Views on Creation and Evolution) adopt a more humble approach.  Nelson & Reynolds acknowledge the difficulties in current young-earth science, but think there are enough questions (about old-earth theories) to make young-earth theories worthy of further scientific research and development.  Although they think a young-earth interpretation of the Bible is justified, and young-earth theology is preferable, they are not dogmatic about these views and are less critical of fellow Christians who think old-earth views are justified and preferable. While Ham and the Morrises treat old-earth creationists as "compromisers" who are enemies of authentic Christian doctrine and faith, Nelson & Reynolds treat them as valuable allies: "With both Christian and secular educational systems beset by naturalism, a truce is in order.  The old-earth creationist is an ally against both the theistic naturalism limiting the free flow of ideas inside the church and the secular naturalism cutting off new thinking in the universities."  In my opinion, the approach taken by Nelson & Reynolds is closer to an appropriate humility that is logically justified and will be spiritually edifying for the Christian community.  In addition, recently there have been other examples of edifying attitudes and productive actions in the Christian community, and this is encouraging.
    In all of our discussions, a principle from Section 3 is important and is worth re-emphasizing: "We should always remember that we are not comparing the Bible with science and deciding which is more important;  instead, we are comparing some fallible human interpretations (of the Bible) with other fallible human interpretations (of nature) while trying to search for the truth."  Paul Smith describes a useful principle of humility: "I wish that all Christians would admit the limits of our knowledge on the proper interpretation of both the scientific evidence and the statements of Scripture on this matter;  I have far more faith in the unity of truth and the authority of Scripture than I have in my interpretation of either being correct! " (details)
    More words of wisdom — useful in all areas of life, including our views of origins — come from St. Augustine: "In essentials, unity.  In nonessentials, diversity.  And in all things, charity."  To decide when unity is desirable and when diversity is acceptable, we must wisely distinguish between what is essential and what is not essential.  Behaving with charity requires a humility in estimating the certainty of our theological and scientific interpretations, and a love that transcends our differences, so "everyone will know that we are disciples of Jesus because we love one another." (John 13:35, paraphrased)

    back to the dilemma of if-if-then logic
 

 
Appendix
    If you arrived here from an external link, you may be wondering "Where am I, and what's happening?", so here is an explanation:
    This appendix is the final part of a page asking "Why does it matter?"  {top of page}
    It begins with quotations, below, that show why there is so much psychological and spiritual stress on a Christian who  1) is being told that rejecting young-earth theories is equivalent to rejecting authentic Christian beliefs, and  2) is being confronted with overwhelming scientific evidence indicating that young-earth theories are not true.
    This sets a context for the personal stories of four people who describe their own struggles and explain why "linking belief in the Bible with belief in a young earth" — by declaring that "if the Bible is true, the earth is young" which means "if the earth is not young, the Bible is not true" — does not seem wise.

Does the gospel require a young earth?
    The following quotations (which are extensions of three quotations in the main body) show that, when we ask "Should the gospel be linked with a young earth?", prominent young-earth creationists answer "Yes!"
    Ken Ham: "As soon as Christians allow for death, suffering, and disease before sin, then the whole foundations of the message of the Cross and the Atonement have been destroyed. ... The whole message of the Gospel falls apart if one allows millions of years for the creation of the world. (source)"
    Henry Morris: { I decided to omit the quotation that I had been using for Henry; I'll try to find a better one soon. }
    John Morris: "Any form of evolution and old-earth thinking is incompatible with the work of Christ. ... If a Christian can distort Scripture to teach such beliefs as evolution, progressive creation, an old earth, or a local flood, can that Christian be trusted with other doctrines? ... Creationism should be a requirement for Christian leadership!  No church should sanction a pastor, Sunday school teacher, deacon, elder, or Bible-study leader who knowledgeably and purposefully errs on this crucial doctrine. (source)"

    These quotations are from leaders in the YEC community, but (as discussed earlier) there is a range of views about this question.

    back to Should the gospel be linked with a young earth?

Personal Experiences

    To understand the context of the experiences below, you can read (in the section above) Does the gospel require a young earth? and (earlier in the page) Should the gospel be linked with a young earth?

    Ed, a former young-earth creationist, outlines a problem and a solution:
    Creation science had become a passion for me almost from the day that I was introduced to it. ... [but eventually, after more study]... I talked to my pastor (a young-earther) about my new discoveries [regarding the errors in young-earth science].  He warned me as so many other "creationists" have, that to continue on this path was dangerous and would only lead to me falling away from the faith.  At times, that notion seemed true!  He asked me, "do you want to end up like "R" (a college student) who now denies the faith after he tried to pursue scientific understanding?"  That question hit me hard and weighed heavy on my heart; however, I would soon discover that that line of reasoning was also imaginary.  Since then, I have corresponded with several Christians who have traveled the same path as I have.  One thing that is always agreed upon is the damage young-earth creationism can do to souls; how many believers they have seen fall away.  We have been taught that the Bible demands a young earth interpretation and when the facts of nature become inescapable - our faith becomes shattered!  My pastor was wrong, and the opposite was the case.  If "R" had been offered an alternative from the beginning, he would never have experienced the turmoil he went through.  When "R" could no longer deny that the universe was billions of years old, the only option left for him was to deny the Bible.  How many others have been disheartened in a like manner? [emphasis added by me] {source}

    Glenn Morton describes his experiences as an earnest seeker of truth:
    I became a Christian in my sophomore year of college.  The people who had led me to the Lord immediately began my discipleship.  They taught me to evangelize and they taught me what they felt a Christian should believe.  But most importantly they were a loving family of believers which was a welcome oasis for someone like me whose home life had been less than familial.  Thus, when I was told that Christians must believe in a young-earth and a global flood, I went along willingly.  I believed.
    Being a physics major in college I had not taken any geology courses.  I knew there were physics problems, but I thought I could solve them.  When I graduated from college, physicists were unemployable since NASA had just laid off many... [but] I found work as a geophysicist working for a seismic company.  Within a year, I was processing seismic data for a major oil company.  This was where I first became exposed to the problems [documented in his website] geology presented to the idea of a global flood. ...
    Over the next several years, I struggled to understand how the geologic data I worked with everyday could be fit into a biblical perspective.  I published more than twenty items in the Creation Research Society Quarterly toward that goal.  I would listen to the discussions that the Institution of Creation Research (ICR) had with people like Harold Slusher, Duane Gish, Steve Austin, and Tom Barnes, and with some of their graduates whom I had hired.  Nothing worked to explain what I saw. ... The data I was seeing at work was not agreeing with what I had been taught as a Christian.  Doubts about what I was writing and teaching began to grow.  No one could give me a model which allowed me to unite into one cloth what I believed on Sunday and what I was forced to believe by the data Monday through Friday.
    Unfortunately, my fellow young earth creationists were not willing to listen to the problems. ... But then I too was often unwilling to face the data or to read books... which argued against young-earth creationism.  I would have eagerly isolated myself from geologic data, but my job would not allow it.  I preferred darkness of self-deception to the light of truth.  Yet, day after day, my job forced me to confront that awful data.  And to make matters worse, I was viewed by my fellow young-earth creationists as less than pure for trying to discuss or solve the problems. ...
    It appeared that the more questions I raised, the more they questioned my Christianity.  When telling one friend of my difficulties with young-earth creationism and geology, he told me that I had obviously been brainwashed by my geology professors.  When I told him that I had never taken a geology course, he then said I must be saying this in order to hold my job.  Never would he consider that I might really believe the data.  This attitude that the messenger of bad news must be doubted amazed me.  And it convinced me that too many of my fellow Christians were not interested in truth but only that I should conform to their theological position. ...
    By 1986, the growing doubts about the ability of the widely accepted creationist viewpoints to explain the geologic data led to a nearly ten year withdrawal from publication. ... I was still a young-earth creationist but I did not know how to solve the problems. ... Eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationism.  Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology had turned out to be true.  I took a poll of all eight of the graduates from ICR's school who had gone into the oil industry and were working for various companies.  I asked them one question, "From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?"  That is a very simple question.  One man, who worked for a major oil company, grew very silent on the phone, sighed, and softly said, "No!"  A very close friend that I had hired, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!"  But he could not name one.  No one else could either.
    Being through with creationism, I was almost through with Christianity.  I was thoroughly indoctrinated to believe that if the earth were not young and the flood not global, then the Bible was false.  I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.  During that time, I re-read a book [by Alan Hayward, and]... his view had the power to unite the data with the Scripture.  That is what I have done with my views.  Without that I would now be an atheist. ... His book was very important in keeping me in the faith. ...
    It was my lack of knowledge that allowed me to go along willingly and become a young-earth creationist.  It was isolation from contradictory data, a fear of contradictory data and a strong belief in the young-earth interpretation that kept me there for a long time.  The biggest lesson I have learned in this journey is to read the works of those with whom you disagree.  God is not afraid of the data.

    Paul Smith opens his Open Letter to a Young Earth Creationist,
    Basically, here's the deal:  I myself am a former young-earth creationist.  While I'm intellectually attracted to certain features of various old-earth systems, it would be inaccurate to say that I've adopted any one of them as my own.  It's probably best, then, to call me a libertarian on matters of dating the creation; i.e. my position is that the Christian is free to believe what he feels in good conscience — and as led by the Spirit — can create the best harmony between his understanding of Scripture and his understanding of natural history.  In some sense, I wish that all Christians would admit the limits of our knowledge on the proper interpretation of both the scientific evidence and the statements of Scripture on this matter;  I have far more faith in the unity of truth and the authority of Scripture than I have in my interpretation of either being correct!  So understand that I know that I could be dead wrong on this, and that right now I am simply following where I think the preponderance of both the Scriptural and scientific evidence lead.  I reserve the right to change my mind should I find the weight of the evidence tipping the other way at some time in the future.
    Later in the letter, Paul says,
    I would only appeal that we be very cautious about claiming that some theory does violence to scripture if we are not certain about the accuracy of the interpretive inferences we are bringing to the passage in question.
    And he concludes,
    At the end of the day, I am far more concerned with seeing the Kingdom increase than I am with seeing my curiosity satisfied on origins matters.  I believe that Scripture is God's creation, and I pray for His guidance and wisdom as I seek to come to true conclusions about the evidence I encounter inside of it — regardless of the opinions of men.  Similarly, I believe that the world around us is God's creation, and I pray for His guidance and wisdom as I seek to arrive at true conclusions about the evidence I encounter inside of it — again, regardless of the opinions of men (scientist or otherwise), many of which I happen to think are false.  I hope that at least we can agree that this is the way God would have us approach His Word and His world, despite our disagreements about what conclusions the evidence in each would lead us to. (source)

    Joshua Zorn, an evangelical missionary, makes an urgent appeal to "well-meaning Christians who share with me both a high regard for Scripture and evangelism," beginning with his personal experience:
    I became a Christian in 1973 at the age of thirteen when my Sunday school teacher took four lessons to explain the plan of salvation to us. ... This was the first time I had heard that the blood of Christ shed at the cross could wash away my sins.  I immediately accepted this good news that salvation was by grace through faith and not by works.  I began a new life in Christ which has now led me to work as a church planter in the former Soviet Union. ...
    A few years after my conversion,... I became an enthusiastic devotee of young earth creation science (YECS) as promoted by the Institute for Creation Research. ...  By the time I entered graduate school, I had discovered Christian geologist Davis Young's book, Christianity and the Age of the Earth. ... As I read this book, I saw that the scientific arguments for a young earth were completely untenable.  I found that all the other Christian graduate students had problems with YECS geological arguments.  And so, although it was painful, I asked myself if I wanted to continue to believe in something that is quite plainly wrong.  I decided I did not, and so rejected the young earth position.
    But rejection of the young earth was not only a matter of science.  It affected my faith and the core of my life. ... I went through a period of deep soul seeking, clinging to the Lord. ....  Twelve years have gone by since I abandoned the young earth viewpoint.  As I continued to study (toward a Ph.D. in mathematics with applications in population genetics), I unfortunately saw argument after argument of YECS crumble in the face of evidence, both new and old.  The list is in the hundreds and goes far beyond the issue of the age of the earth.
    I don't expect pastors or church leaders to be impressed by all the scientific evidence unless there are also good hermeneutical reasons for abandoning the YECS position and a literal reading of the opening chapters of Genesis.  As my prejudice wore off over the years, I began to discover a whole new world of evangelical interpretations as well as persuasive arguments against some aspects of the literalist reading of Genesis 1-3. ...
    Do not fall into the trap of thinking the age of the earth is just a matter of "trusting God's Word" versus "trusting science."  Christians need to, and every day do, trust both.  The common error of rejecting many well-established results of science in favor of a certain biblical interpretation is not a valid Christian position.  In the end, the truth will be a harmony which rejects neither the teachings of Scripture nor the well-established results of science.  The results of science (properly interpreted) should never challenge the authority of Scripture, but they may cause us to reexamine our interpretation of Scripture.  This is what I am pleading with young earthers to do.
    The Christian position must be that all truth is God's truth and that we have both general revelation (nature) and special revelation (the Bible) as sources of truth. ... Ultimately, our confidence in Scripture should not rest on having a complete harmony between science and the Bible because we simply do not know enough to complete the harmony. ...
    [Young-earth teaching] creates a nearly insurmountable barrier between the educated world and the church.  Certainly God in his sovereignty has allowed some to be persuaded to believe in Christ through the arguments of YECS.  But how many more have not accepted the Gospel because of the unnecessary demand that converts believe that the world is no more than 10,000 years old?  And how many have unnecessarily gone through a crisis of faith similar to that which I described above?  How many have chosen to give up their faith altogether rather than to accept scientific nonsense or a major reinterpretation of Scripture?  How much have we dishonored our Lord by slandering scientists and their reputation?  How much have we sinned against Christian brothers holding another opinion by naming them "dangerous" and "compromisers"?  How much responsibility do we bear for having taught others (James 3:1) things that probably are not even true?  Each must search his own heart. ...
    As I write this paper, I see YECS literature becoming more and more widely distributed in the growing churches in my corner of the former Soviet Union.  We are sowing the seeds of a major crisis which will make the job of world evangelism even harder than it is already.  Lord, give us wisdom!  (source)

    And from Hill Roberts, head of the "Lord, I Believe" ministry,
    Some of my well-meaning brethren wish we would just drop all aspects of time discussions from our presentations.  That would certainly be the easy way.  Todd [who discovered the many errors and distortions in young-earth science, and then rejected the Bible and Jesus] is why we cannot go that way.  If all brethren would keep all views concerning the age of creation between them and God, we wouldn't have to address the topic.  But that is not likely to happen any time soon.  We teach what we believe is the truth of the matter: that the Bible does not require one to believe the creation is ancient or recent (the Bible's silence on the matter permits one to believe whatever age wished).  We teach that Genesis is a true and simple account of the awesome primary miracle.  The creation is the result of the power of God's word, purpose and love for man. (source)

Copyright © 2003 by Craig Rusbult
all rights reserved