Few things are more likely to arouse the contempt and derision of modern intellectuals — even Catholic intellectuals — than stating one’s belief in a young earth. Today’s image-savy Catholics apparently see the young-earth controversy as an opportunity to prove that they are not wooden fundamentalists or biblical literalists or anti-science or anti-intellectual or anything else considered by the world to be backwards and unsophisticated. It is the mentality of the herd.
I believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old. This is not in itself an article of faith, and I might be wrong about it, but the burden of proof is on the old-earth promoters. The scientists, who have no tool but naturalistic extrapolation, have certainly not proven their case. Scientists calculate the age of the earth by extrapolating from natural processes they are capable of observing. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar. Now, these extrapolations usually work, because natural processes are usually a pretty reliable indicator of natural history. But this is not always the case, as Mark Twain humorously illustrates:
In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. This is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolithic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
In the ten minutes I have remaining, let me summarize the reasons why I believe in a young earth:
1. I believe that Genesis was written as history and that the biblical genealogies are reliable. They are not precise, they can be confusing, there are inexplicable gaps, and reasonable scholars can disagree about a few hundred years. But they are not off by 4.6 billion years. Even old-earth evolutionists admit that human civilization is not more than 25,000 years old.
2. An old earth would therefore require me to believe that the earth was around for billions of years before the creation of man. But our Catholic Faith tells us that the earth was made for man. How do we explain God’s purpose for the earth for so long without man?
3. Sin brought corruption into the world: not only human death, but the corruption of all creation. That is the biblical teaching and the patristic consensus. In an old earth scenario the cycle of natural conflict, death, and decay is established long before sin entered the world through Adam’s transgression.
4. Which brings us to Adam and Eve, who, according to Catholic doctrine, are the first-created man and woman. How does their creation fit into an old-earth scenario? Most old-earthers believe in an old earth because it is the only thing that makes the biological evolution of mankind seem remotely possible, and they desperately want to be believe in some form of theistic evolution. Yet the biological evolution of mankind cannot be reconciled with Catholic revelation, which holds not only that Adam and Eve were the first created man and woman, but that they also were the first and only parents of the human race.
Let us assume, for a moment, that a biological mechanism for human speciation has been discovered and it is now possible to imagine that man could have evolved from primordial seaweed. If man truly evolved from some lesser form of life, via natural selection, how likely is it that the first man and the first woman happened to have emerged, after billions of years, at the same time and in the same place via the same natural process? (I anticipate: “Because God intervened and overrode the natural process!” To which I reply: That is precisely what I believe happened at the creation of man and the world, events which natural processes cannot explain.)
5. Scripture and Tradition clearly allow for the creation of man and the world in a state of maturity. If you are a theist and believe in creation ex nihilo, then you must at least believe in this possibility. Although the possibility of maturity at the moment of creation doesn’t say anything one way or the other about the age of the earth, it does say something about modern techniques used to date the earth: things may have an appearance of age. The closer we get to origins, the less we are able to assume that apparent maturity is the product of age.
6. There was a time when nature was not. The creation itself was a supernatural event and cannot be explained by nature. What are the implications of this basic truth? It means that the speed of light was not always what it is today, the properties of matter were not always what they are today, the laws of physics were not always what they are today, etc. Nature and science are insufficient: old-earth theory assumes that they are sufficient.
15 responses to Why I Believe In A Young Earth
One of my favorite topics. I don’t have time to refute all your “beliefs” (which is what they are), but I do have a few questions:
Point 2: “How do we explain God’s purpose for the earth for so long without man?” Since the earth was made for man, why should it bother you that He took a long time in preparing it? To Him, that time was as nothing.
Point 3: Where in Catholic doctrine am I told that Adam’s sin brought death to all creatures?
Point 4: You are correct that “the biological evolution of mankind cannot be reconciled with Catholic revelation”, and that Adam and Eve “were the first and only parents of the human race.” There is actually some scientific evidence to back you up on this. (Do you happen to know what it is?) But you seem to want to use this point to get to
Point 5: “Scripture and Tradition clearly allow for the creation of man and the world in a state of maturity“. Yes, but they do not compel it. “If you are a theist and believe in creation ex nihilo, then you must at least believe in this possibility.” No I must not. That a thing is possible doesn’t make it at all likely.
Evolutionism is a theory that badly needs refuting, but you’re not going to do it by telling me that the creation of man and the creation of the fruit fly were equally miraculous events, nor by asserting vague reservations about the speed of light and the properties of matter. You need to say when these things were not what they are, based on some evidentiary necessity and not on your sense that the evidence doesn’t sit well with Revelation. Miracles are by their nature rare and calculated to get our attention. In the story of creation, there are only two points at which the Christian has a vested interest in the miraculous: at the creation of the universe, and of man. Do you really want a God who creates all things in maturity (which levels our sense of the miraculous), or who tinkers here and there frequently and unpredictably, thus rendering impossible our ability to distinguish the miraculous from the natural?
If you want to defeat evolution, defeat it on its own terms, not on terms dictated by the possibilities of spiritual truths.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
Why I Believe In A Young Earth
Bill — To answer your questions directly …
Point #2: The idea that the earth was around for billions of years before the creation of man bothers me because it makes revelation unintelligible. You seem very willing to let science shed light on revelation, but much less willing to let revelation shed light on science. Catholic revelation has a better track record than science when it comes to the history of man and the world, so it gets the benefit of the doubt in my book.
The answer to your question about point #3 is: I don’t know. I misspoke, presumptuously, and corrected the point based upon what I know to be true. I think I’ve answered everything else.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
Why I Believe In A Young Earth
If you think it unlikely that man or the natural world was created in a state of maturity, how far do you take this?
SOMETHING must have come first from nothing: how does something come from nothing without an appearance of age?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Bill — Thanks for the reply.
With respect to point #2, it appears that we agree about the possibility of time being “nothing” on God’s watch. I suggest that time may also be insignifcant on man’s watch: that is, what looks to some of us like billions of years may have taken place in an instant.
With respect to point #3, you were right to challenge me as my wording was very careless. I have rewritten it with less presumption on my part.
Point #4: I don’t keep up with the science, but I’m always glad to learn that science is discovering what we already know from revelation.
Point #5: We are very far apart on this one. I don’t think anyone needs to know exactly when the laws of nature have been altered or suspended in history. We know that they did not exist at the Creation, and it is likely that they were somehow changed during the Flood. It is also probable that what we call “nature” was quite different before the Fall. The closer science gets to origins, the less it can rely upon the empirical observations of the last century. More later if time allows …
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Why I Believe In A Young Earth
You manage to respond to the points without answering my questions. “May be,” “may have”, “don’t need to know exactly”, “likely”, “probable.” Don’t you see these are leaps of faith?
And if you don’t keep up with the science, how do expect to challenge it?
Your final question I don’t understand. I can only say that in nature, things seem to acquire form over time (and then lose it) whether we’re talking about people or solar systems. That man came into being in a state of relative maturity compared to other things is, again, an article of faith that you and I share. I’m not going to convince others of this truth by denying the obvious. I don’t believe God put all this evidence before us in an attempt at trickery. As Einstein said, He is subtle but not malicious.
I can see that something in you is deeply wedded to your postion, and I will always value your “fundamentalism” over the atheist’s materialism, for your philosophy will not send people to concentration camps, abort them in the womb, clone their likenesses for research, or try to kill them when they’re old. But I’d also like you to see that such a marriage is not one necessary to defending the Faith’s doctrinal children. Let’s look for miracles where they are necessary or, as I said, they become less remarkable.
I also wrote something related to this from which, if you haven’t read it, you might get some enjoyment. You may find that you are able to go after the enemy on philosophical grounds rather than grounds purely scientific.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why I Believe In A Young Earth
I thank you for bringing this up. I am working on a long post on it that will happen in the next few days. I will let you know when it is up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Big Bang Bill: Thanks for the link to your blog entry. As always, it was great, and a big “amen” to everything.
As for the FT discussion, I’ve been a reader/subscriber since 1995 and have followed the ID movement pretty closely. It has value, but as I mentioned, is flawed in important respects.
You keep saying that I am presenting mere “beliefs”, “leaps of faith”, as if this were a Bad Thing. Of course they are beliefs, and of course they require faith. Discussion about origins, from an empirical and scientific point of view, can only involve probabilities. I find it amazing that old earth promoters, who claim to have come to their conclusions strictly on the basis of empirical science, claim a certitude greater than those whose conclusions are drawn from both empirical science and the inerrant biblical record!
Their absolute certitude is a tremendous strike against them considering their unwillingness to consider the truth about nature. And what is the truth about nature?
First, the laws of nature are still little understood: even evolutionists in their more candid moments admit this much. And second, nature is itself a *created thing* and is not the highest law in the universe.
More than a little humility is in order: hence my very deliberate language of “maybe”, “perhaps”, “likely”, “probable”, and so forth.
A final point: many argue against nature having an appearance of age by saying that God does not deceive, He is not a trickster, etc. Of course I agree, but I would apply this first to revelation. Would God have made His Scriptures unintelligible by hiding billions of years between the lines?
Would He have tricked the Fathers and the Doctors and the Popes of the Catholic Church for 1900 years into believing and teaching something that is untrue?
I am not sure whether the age of the earth is something that can be considered “doctrine”, but insofar as it touches on Catholic doctrine (e.g., biblical inerrancy, original sin, polygenism) it is not unimportant. The reason that Christians have always believed in a young earth is because that is the clear implication of Holy Writ and the clear understanding of the Fathers.
When I was received into the Catholic Church, I made a profession of faith, before a priest in union with Rome, in which I vowed never to interpret the Sacred Scriptures “except according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers”. That is a vow I intend to keep.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Why I Believe In A Young Earth
I have been visiting various Christian forums on the internet. It is obvious that there are a lot of people that want to convince Christians evolution is a fact. These people are willing to go into great detail to explain scientific terminology and I think I’ve gotten the equivalent of one free college level course on evolution. Why the effort? It does not appear to be benevolent.
If any questions are raised, those same people begin to attack their questioners. They accuse them of being anti-science, irrational, willfully ignorant, believers of a myth, and then, the Holy Bble is attacked directly. A correlation is also made designed to shame people and to make them think that if they live in a community that does not believe in evolution, something bad will happen and they will become a laughingstock. I know of no evidence that even suggests moving from a small town to a large city will automatically raise your IQ, but the opposite is suggested all the time. Living in a small town = small minded. This is very sad.
Polystrate fossils of trees that pass through multiple layers of rock. Somehow, the coelacanth survived a past environment that was supposedly different than what we have now. Scientists have recently discovered bones indicating more modern dinosaurs coexisted with their ancestors. And an early creature that lived in trees that was supposedly man’s ancestor is now found living in the same time period of the more modern dinosaurs. This time compression suggests to me that the dating is way off.
Assuming anything, absolutely anything about Genesis must conform to the earth is billions of years old idea. Any other tought is ridiculed. Looking at genesis as history, God, being God, has the power to create a ready to use earth and a fully formed man instantly. Look at the miracles of Jesus Christ. He raised the dead instantly, restored sight instantly, changed water to wine instantly and calmed the wind with a word. I think God is not beyond creating a planet in a 24 hour day. And the interesting thing about making a comment like that, is the instant, knee jerk reaction of those opposed. “How dare you limit God like that?” Who’s limiting God? I’m looking at the power exhibited by Jesus Christ on earth.
Peace,
Ed
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Why I Believe In A Young Earth
Mr. Wiseman, the commenter above who calls himself “William” links to a post at my blog and gives the impression that he wrote it. Well, I am the host of that blog and author of that post, and I want it understood that I neither made any of the above comments, nor do I consider “William’s” imposture the sincerest form of flattery. It’s just another form of plagiarism, also known as stealing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually, on re-reading, I guess I did write it. I just don’t remember doing it. So I’ve accused myself of stealing my own stuff. My wife’s been worried about me lately, and I just shrug her off. I might have to start paying attention. (I will not be telling her about this little faux pas.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well, for me, evolution meant that we, as a species, earned the right to exist, we gained our capabilites through trial and error.
It doesnt seem right that an omnipotent being would just give us our existence without having to go through some kind of test to actively earn it, just giving us that right is too easy altogethor.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Your point about the burden of proof makes no sense. Why does your view automatically become the default? No reason. A more intellectually honest position would be to place the burden on proof on anybody making any claim to have special knowledge of the age of the earth, including young earth creationists.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
God is most definitely real and Evolution from a common ancestor with apes is demonstrably false. For those who doubt it, read The Attemped Murder Of God: Hidden Science You Really Need To Know.
No more doubts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Nice Try
You are the author of this book and promote it by posting about it on different forums and discussion groups. I read some of the reviews:
“Quite amusing this could actually be written with a serious, literal intent. Perhaps worth a look if you’re interested in a laugh at the expense of morons peddling and buying into this nonsense.”
“I wonder if this is for real.”
“If only you spent more time on your book perhaps the main argument, the “scientific” case for god, would not have been so vacuous?”
“I am sure it is illuminating for all that, it’s good to get your b.s. out there. What else is going to balance the truth but a pack of lies?”
“I wonder if the author was reviewing their own book? very tinfoil, as you say.”
“Sounds like the typical anti-scientific conspiracy bs that touts “evidence” by horrifically twisting any data, and misunderstanding science in general.”
I would thank you for my best morning laugh in a long time, but I blew coffee out my nose and I think I just peed a little. Time to go clean up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why I Believe In A Young Earth
Burden Of Proof
“I believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old. This is not in itself an article of faith, and I might be wrong about it, but the burden of proof is on the old-earth promoters.”
Scientists have determined the Earth to be approximately 4.55 billion years old. There is ample evidence using many different methods. Anyone making a statement that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old is simply making statements without anything to back it up.
Twain was an intelligent man, but was limited by the knowledge of his time. Plate Tectonics, Ice ages, and other environmental pressure including those caused by man have affected the Mississippi River. The quote is cute but irrelevant.
Here’s some good reading on the topic: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Why I Believe In A Young Earth
Leave a reply to Why I Believe In A Young Earth