I wrote a pair of related pages — about Evidence-Based Science (showing why evidence-and-logic shows us that the earth is old) and (in this page) Young-Earth Science & Theology — because I think all people, especially Christians, should search for truth and believe what is true.
I'm a Bible-believing Christian. I believe what the Bible teaches, because I think it's true. I also think the earth is very old, and — as explained in a section (*) asking "Is young-earth belief necessary for a Christian?" and answering "no" — I'm confident that "belief in the truth of what the Bible teaches does not require belief in a young earth, and God's wonderful plan for us (for converting sin and death into salvation and life) will work, if you humbly accept God's gift of forgiving grace through Jesus Christ, whether the earth is young or old" and "the full gospel of Jesus...* is fully compatible with a young earth or old earth" so "we can carefully examine the evidence-and-logic of science with an open mind, to learn what information from nature shows us about the world created by God."
* Is science compatible with belief in miracles, including the healings done by Jesus and the resurrection of Jesus? Yes, as explained in Science and Religion — Conflict or Compatibility?
* If you want to know “why” you can read Sections 3A-3D of my medium-sized Overview FAQ about Creation or (in my shorter Introductory FAQ about Creation) Brief Summaries of 3A-3D and Stories about Real-Life Drama or my comprehensive open letter, Biblical Theology for young-earth Christians.
3 — What does Bible-information say
about age?
3A. Is an old-earth view of Genesis 1 satisfactory?
3B. Does the gospel require “no death before sin”?
3C. Is young-earth belief necessary for a Christian?
3D. Is it wise to link The Gospel with a young earth?
What is Creation Science? Although the term "creation science" is often associated with young-earth science, authentic creation science can be done by any scientist who believes that God created our world — whether by young-earth creation, old-earth progressive creation (with miracles), or old-earth evolutionary creation (with only natural process) — and who wants to use the methods of science to discover the truth about nature and its history. But for clarity, in this page Creation Science (capitalized) will refer to young-earth science.
Conclusion first, then Science (it's the process in young-earth science)
In 1983, near the end of a vigorous yet friendly discussion with Henry Morris (who popularized modern young-earth science) I asked “is there any scientific evidence that could ever convince you the earth is old?” He explained why his answer must be “no” because he believed a young earth was taught in Genesis 1, so a young-earth conclusion should be the starting point (and ending point) for his young-earth science. In 2009 (but not in 2019), CreationWiki's page on Flood Geology admitted that young-earth science begins by assuming the global flood, which "is taken as an established historical fact, not as a hypothesis to be tested by science. Therefore, the flood cannot be falsified by any scientific data." But in conventional evidence-based science the sequence is different — first we logically evaluate the evidence, then we reach a conclusion.
To convert "conclusion first, then science" into a persuasive argument, proponents of young-earth Creation Science try to convince other Christians that a young earth is a necessary part of Christian theology. For example, two prominent young-earth leaders — John Morris (son of Henry Morris, and president of Institute for Creation Research) and Ken Ham (founder of Answers in Genesis) — declare that if the earth is old, "the Christian faith is all in vain" and "the whole message of the Gospel falls apart." In claims that I think are very un-wise, Morris says "if the earth is old, ... then Christianity is wrong!" and Ham says "the god of an old earth destroys the Gospel." Even though we have Bible-based reasons to doubt that a young earth is an essential doctrine (is it taught with certainty in the Bible? and is it important? no, no) they boldly declare that “if the Bible is true, the earth is young.” Unfortunately, this extreme claim is logically equivalent to saying “if the earth is not young, the Bible is not true” and that is why — if you agree with their unwise claim, or if you know people who do — I hope you'll read my sections about Young-Earth Theology or, for ideas from other authors with a wide range of views (both old earth & young earth), AGE OF THE EARTH — THEOLOGY which includes all of the quotations in this section.
A Defense Strategy: Discredit the Witness
(that is testifying against young-earth science)
In the two ways below, by attacking scientists and their science, young-earth creationists try to "discredit the witness" that is testifying against their views.
Attack the Character of Scientists
In this strategy, which is a confrontational us-against-them strategy based on a "conclusion first" argument, young-earth proponents define the question (how old is the earth?) as a war between two worldviews: Christian young-earth creationism and atheistic old-earth evolutionism. Therefore, every old-earth view — even when it's proposed by a Christian whose beliefs are based on the Bible, and who rejects the creative sufficiency of natural evolution — is unbiblical evolution.* The heroes and villians are clearly defined, thus forming the basis for ad hominem attacks (implicit or explicit, general or personal) on the character of those who think the earth is old, since they must be either non-Christians or deluded Christian “compromisers” who are letting themselves be used by opponents of the Bible.
Prominent leaders of young-earth organizations (Ken Ham, John Morris, and others) claim that Christian scientists who think the earth is old have adopted this view because they value science above the Bible, and they want to be accepted by their colleagues in the scientific community, because they don't have the strength of character that is required to be a totally committed Christian, to take a stand by just saying say “the Bible teaches a young earth, so I believe it,” to re-interpret the scientific evidence in whatever ways are necessary for maintaining a young-earth conclusion. But... most Christian scientists think they cannot do these re-interpretations without losing their scientific integrity and intellectual honesy
For example, John Morris declares that young-earth belief "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," whether they are a scientist or non-scientist. Ken Ham is more harsh, stating that Christians who think the earth is old are "worshipping a different god, the cruel god of an old earth." Wow.
They want Christians to believe that every question about age-science is about much more than just age & science, so Bible-believing Christians should be on their side, on the side of God and good. But, as explained in THE TWO BOOKS OF GOD, "proponents of both views [young earth & old earth] include intelligent scholars with expertise (theological and/or scientific) who are devout Christians with high moral character, who sincerely want to find the truth [about the world created by God]."{ or, a condensed summary of TWO BOOKS asks "Can we compare scripture (as in The Bible) with science?" and answers “no, we can logically compare only our human interpretations of scripture & nature, in theology & science.” }
* Ironically, a two-model approach typically increases the perceived plausibility of evolution because this converts all evidence for an old earth into evidence for evolution, when it encourages a difference-ignoring conflation of The Many Meanings of Evolution.
Attack the Reliability of Historical Sciences
Even though we cannot directly observe events in the ancient history of nature, can we — by a logical analysis of historical evidence — reach reliable conclusions about what happened in the past, on the earth and in other parts of the universe?
Most young-earth creationists say NO. They challenge the credibility of all historical sciences that claim the evidence indicates an old earth and universe. They ask “Were you there? Did you see it?”, and declare that “no” means “then you can't know much about it.” Their skepticism about historical science is similar to the postmodernism of radical relativists who challenge the reliability of all science by claiming that scientific evidence is always inadequate, so the conclusions of scientists must be determined by their nonscientific beliefs.
But despite this postmodern skeptical relativism, when we ask “can historical science be reliable?” it's easy to answer “yes” and here is why. Although historical data is limited, since we cannot do controlled lab experiments, historical science is empirical (based on observations) with plenty of observations available, and scientists have developed methods to reduce the practical impact of data limitations. Occasionally there are rational reasons for caution, but in most areas (and for all important questions about age) most scholars who carefully examine the methods of historical science will confidently agree that "historical sciences [in fields like geology, radiometric dating, and astronomy] have a solid foundation — the logical evaluation of empirical evidence — that provides a reliable way to learn about the history of nature." (quoted from my page explaining why Historical Science is Empirical, Scientific, and Reliable)
Two Questions for young-earth Christians
Perspectives & attitudes vary from one person to another, and many young-earth Christians don't share the harsh attitudes of leaders who think old-earth Christians worship "the cruel god of an old earth" and should not be allowed to lead a Bible study about any part of the Bible. If you want to discover what a young-earth believer thinks about the two arguments above — Attacking the Character of Scientists and Attacking the Reliablity of Historical Sciences — during a conversation you can ask two questions:
1 — First ask, “Could any scientific evidence convince you that the earth is old?”
After listening to their answer, you can ask a second question:
2a — If they say NO to #1, ask “is your young-earth Creation Science really science?”, which is appropriate because the foundation of science is an open-minded sequence: a scientist FIRST gathers observation-evidence and logically evalutes it, and THEN reaches a conclusion. Of course, a biased mind will not always produce a false conclusion; scientists can hope that observations of reality will support a conclusion they prefer, and this may occur. But they should be willing to change their minds if the evidence points in another direction. If a conclusion is predetermined and it cannot be influenced by evidence-and-logic (does this occur in young-earth science?) this is not authentic science. In young-earth science the goal is to show that the earth is young, instead of trying to find the truth about nature and its history. But a search for truth should be the goal of all scientists and (especially) all Christians.
2b — If their answer for #1 is YES, ask “then why do you harshly criticize the theology, and sometimes even the faith and character, of your many fellow Christians (your brothers and sisters in Christ) who have logically & prayerfully examined the evidence, and it has convinced them that the scientific support for an old earth is extremely strong, and an old-earth interpretation of Genesis is justified by the text and is compatible with the full gospel of Jesus and conventional Christian theology?”
IF you have carefully examined the evidence-based science in Sections A-H with an open mind — by asking, “in an objectively neutral evaluation of the evidence, based on logic rather than personal preference, what would be the conclusion?” — I think you'll agree that the scientific support for an old earth is extremely strong, with multiple independent confirmations. Conventional old-earth theories correctly explain the major features of geology, plus important details. By contrast, young-earth flood geology repeatedly fails the logical reality checks of scientific method for a wide variety of observations.
Of course, Ken Ham (a prominent young-earth creationist) knows that earth's geology is more complex than his overly simplistic slogan, "billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth," and young-earth scientists make a valiant effort to construct theories that are consistent with the detailed evidence. But they are failing. Why?
Based on what we learn by carefully studying the world created by God, it seems almost certain that the earth really is old. If an old earth is true (if it corresponds to reality), then trying to make observations of reality fit into a theory of young-earth flood geology is like trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole, which is impossible because in reality there is not a match between the shapes of peg and hole. In a similar way, a mismatch between reality and flood geology is the most logical explanation for why young-earth science fails in so many reality checks over such a wide range of science.
Or consider a game of Whac-a-Mole, which is similar in some ways (but not others) to coping with the reality checks of science. When young-earth science tries to solve one problem — by proposing catastrophic plate tectonics (so flood water could cover currently high mountains) or rapid radioactive decay (to match observations of decay) — this causes other problems to "pop up" due to excessive heat. And rapid water currents (generated by the physics of a global flood) are required to produce some observed geological features, but are incompatbile with the existence of other geological features that require calm water and lots of settling time.
So, how do they respond to the strong evidence-and-logic indicating an old earth?
• FAITH: In dogmatic young-earth creationism, open-minded scientific evaluation is not an option. A young earth is the starting point for their science, which is conclusion first so it "cannot be falsified by any scientific data."
• FUTURE SCIENCE: They can hope that "exotic solutions will be discovered in the future" even though, based on everything we know about general principles that are the foundations of physics, there is no possible solution for the heat problems associated with a young earth and global flood. ==[isaac]
• APPEARANCE OF AGE: In his famous book, The Genesis Flood (1961), Henry Morris claimed that we sometimes observe a false appearance of old age, which is caused by an apparent history indicating old age. He made this claim to explain why several types of radiometric dating yield the same numerical value for age (and often it's a very old age) when each method is used independently to determine the age of the same object. Similarly, for questions about distant starlight a common response is that starlight was created in transit to earth, so the starlight actually is young even though it appears to be old. But even though I think "theories proposing Apparent Age are worthy of careful, respectful consideration,... a theory of Actual Age... is preferable; an old universe with true actual history avoids misleading us with false apparent history, is scientifically supported, theologically satisfactory, matches our common sense intuitions about the reality of our experiences, and provides a solid foundation for science and for living by faith." (from Apparent Age & Theology) / But we should ask an important theological question: Why would God produce everything we observe in a false apparent history with many non-essential details (in patterns of forams & isotopes, and much more) when these details would not be necessary to create a mature world that was suitable for Adam and Eve in Eden?
• MIRACLES: An event is a miracle when we do observe it even though it "could not happen" according to the normal behavior of nature. Christians believe that God occasionally does miracles, so if there was a global flood that would not naturally produce what is observed, we should seriously consider the possibility that God did miracles to produce what is observed. Although it's rare for this to be explicitly proposed by young-earth scientists, "multiple miracles" seems to be the only possible explanation that is consistent with a young earth and young universe, when we carefully examine the evidence. The miracles could have been accomplished by a temporary change in the "laws of nature" (which are governed and actualized by God) during the flood, and by God doing on-the-spot customized miracles in whatever ways were necessary to produce everything we now observe. / Although many miracles, covering a wide range of phenomena, are recorded in the Bible, during the flood there is no reporting of major miracles of the many types needed to produce geology and remove heat. And the goal of flood geology is to explain how a global flood would naturally produce what we observe, without miracles, so when we evaluate flood geology and ask “whose theory is being repaired” we see an important difference: young-earth creationists need flood miracles to fix a weakness in a theory (flood geology) they are proposing; by contrast, old-earth creationists propose creation miracles due to perceived weakness in a theory (totally-natural evolution) they are criticizing.
How do advocates of a young earth try to explain the mountain of evidence for an old earth and old universe in many areas of science?
In a minority response, the strength of this evidence is acknowledged by a few conscientious young-earth scientists who respond with appropriate humility.
But in typical young-earth education — in books, websites, lectures, and workshops — there is very little humility. Instead there are bold claims, made with a confidence that is not logically justifiable, about their interpretations of scripture (in theology) and nature (in science). We see bold claims for the certainty of their theology (for their interpretation of the Bible) and the strength of their science.
But even though young-earth scientific arguments may seem impressive for their main audience of non-scientists, their arguments are not satisfactory for most scientists, for all scientists except those who begin with a young-earth conclusion and would not be persuaded by any scientific evidence, by any observations of reality.
Because a careful examination decreases the effectiveness of their arguments, most young-earth websites don't want their followers to understand the strong scientific support for an old earth, and the weak theological support for their own "conclusion first" science, so they don't link to pages in old-earth websites. But old-earth websites do link to young-earth pages. You can see both views, old earth and young earth, in AGE OF THE EARTH - SCIENCE. And you can decide whether you agree with my conclusion that the six days of Genesis 1 form a logical framework for creation history that is age-neutral, so the Bible does not teach anything about the earth's age.
Can science prove the earth is old? No. In science, proof is impossible. But scientists can develop a high level of logically justified confidence in the truth or falsity of a theory. Almost all open-minded scientists who carefully examine the evidence have concluded that an old earth is proved beyond any reasonable doubt, so claims that "the earth is young" and "2 + 2 = 5" seem equally foolish. But there is a difference. Anyone who understands four simple concepts ( 2 , + , = , 5 ) will know that "2 + 2 = 5" is wrong. By contrast with this simplicity, questions about age are complex; and a “multiple confirmations” approach requires an investment of time if you want to understand each area of science, even when the main ideas are coherently summarized, as in this page. And it's easy for non-scientists to be confused by young-earth arguments that seem impressive, even though these arguments are not impressive for scientists who understand the evidence more completely and think about it more logically.
Why does it matter?
I wrote this page because I think everyone, and especially Christians, should be seekers of truth. If an old earth is the truth (because it corresponds to reality, because the earth really is old) this should be acknowledged by Christians.
In our search for truth, how should we use information from scripture and nature? For the most important things in life — for learning about God and how He wants us to live and love — the Bible is more important. But for other questions we don't have to make an either-or choice; instead we can learn from both scripture and nature, and our understanding of total reality (spiritual plus physical) will be more complete and accurate. This approach was approved by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (1982) when they affirmed that "in some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations." This type of correction happened between 1500 and 1700. In 1500, most people were wrong in their interpretations of nature (thinking the earth was stationary) and scripture (thinking it taught a stationary earth). But in 1700, most educated people were correct in their interpretations of nature (yes, the earth moves) and scripture (no, the Bible does not teach a stationary earth).
In 1700, and in 2009, almost all devout Christians are persuaded (by strong scientific evidence) that the earth moves; this motivates us to carefully examine "stationary earth" passages in the Bible, and we find strong reasons to conclude that the Bible does not teach a stationary earth. In a similar way, many devout Christians are persuaded (by strong scientific evidence) that the earth is old; this motivates us to carefully examine "young earth" passages in the Bible, and we find strong reasons to conclude that the Bible does not teach a young earth. I think these conclusions are the best possible result in a search for truth, because it seems extremely probable that we have correct interpretations of nature (the earth moves and is old) and also scripture (no, the Bible does not teach us that the earth is stationary or young).
At the other end of the spectrum, I think the worst result occurs when a Christian believes the unwise conclusion-first argument claiming that "if the earth is not young, the Bible is not true" and then concludes — based on a logical evaluation of evidence from nature — that the earth is not young, so the Bible is not true, and faith is weakened or abandoned. Another spiritual loss occurs when non-Christians who are earnest seekers of truth — but who mistakenly think a young earth and Jesus are a "package deal" so they must believe both or neither — decide that they should reject the whole package because, based on their knowledge of science, they conclude that the earth is not young.
Living by Faith
The goal of a Christian is to live by faith in Christ, to make decisions throughout each day on the basis of trust in God's character and promises. If your faith is affected by anything, including your views of science-and-Christianity, it will affect the way you live. If you see a conflict between the claims of science (saying "the earth is old") and your interpretation of the Bible (if you think it teaches a young earth, so "if the earth is old, the Bible is not true"), this perceived conflict can be a challenge to your personal faith and the quality of your Christian living.
Therefore this page will end the way it began, by confidently proclaiming that there is no actual conflict because "God's wonderful plan for us will work whether the earth is young or old" because "the full gospel of Jesus is fully compatible with a young earth or old earth." If you are not confident about the truth of this statement, I hope you will read Biblical Theology for young-earth Christians.