Apparent Age: Rethinking Creatio ex Nihilo

Hello! This is my first time posting, but I hope I can contribute something
worthwhile. I've enjoyed reading through the postings on this list, and I'd
greatly appreciate some feedback on an idea I've been working on. I've seen
a number of previous threads here on creation and the appearance of age, but
I think this is a somewhat different angle.

For me, the arguments for 'complete' apparent age had always seemed absurd.
For the usual reasons (God the deceiver? God the faith-tester? An illusory
universe?), I had dismissed the idea as a desperate and untenable compromise
of the YEC position. But the book 'Omphalos', Philip Gosse's original (1857)
argument for apparent age, really got me thinking. The result is this essay
on apparent age:
http://www.hlfallout.net/~josh/apparent_age.pdf

In it, I argue that there is a presumption that new creation (of the
YEC-Genesis order) would have appeared with complete apparent age. In
addition, I argue that the reasons for rejecting this sort of apparent age
(usually on theological or logical grounds) are ultimately unsound. It's
largely a philosophical/theological essay: I've tried to make only minimal
assumptions concerning substantive scientific evidence. If my thesis holds
water, I believe it exposes some fundamental misconceptions in the
creation/Genesis debate -- particularly with the conventional YEC view. For
those who subscribe to a YEC-reading of Genesis, the thesis entirely
undermines the assumption that creation (whether the earth or universe)
should appear as "young" as the approximate creation date. At the same time,
it removes many of the primary reasons for rejecting the YEC-reading of
Genesis for proponents of other views (e.g. advocates of OEC or
undisturbed/natural evolution). In short, the thesis provides a framework
for harmonizing a historically orthodox view of Genesis and the Fall with
scientific evidence of an ancient universe. Whether this framework is truly
workable is yet to be seen (which is why I'm after some feedback!).

There are, perhaps, a number of remaining evidential issues for a YEC-type
position even if this view is correct (most significantly in my mind: (a)
evidence of the Flood and (b) evidence that all humans are descendents from
a relatively recent Adam/Eve). However, I suspect that these obstacles are
far from insurmountable.

Here are some things I'm not attempting to argue here:
        -Which is the correct reading of Genesis
        -The validity of intelligent design-type inquiry
        -The possibility that purely natural processes can account for the
universe and life
        -Which is the most plausible Fall/theodicy conception
        -The substantive content of physical history (e.g. whether the
universe actually appears billions of years old etc.)

I merely ask "if one extrapolates the YEC Genesis reading on its own terms,
what should be expected?" My conclusion: complete apparent age is neither a
compromise nor a deception; it is the reasonable expectation of creatio ex
nihilo of the YEC order.

I'd greatly appreciate your thoughts/feedback if you have some time.

-Josh
Received on Sun May 21 02:19:13 2006