CREATION VS EVOLUTION: An Investigation of the age of the earth

BY STEVEN A. FINNESY

PORT RICHEY, FLORIDA WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION THE DAYS OF CREATION THE DAY AGE THEORY THE GAP THEORY DISTANT STARLIGHT PROBLEM EARTHS MAGNETIC FIELD RECESSION OF THE MOON HELIUM FLUX THROUGH THE ATMOSPHERE RADIOACTIVE DATING CARBON 14 DATING WHY THE AGE OF THE EARTH MATTERS WHAT ABOUT OUR RELATIONSHIP TO GOD CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 8 9 11 12 13 15

Introduction The age of the earth has been estimated in a range from a few thousand years old to several billion years old. The Bible tells us that God created all things over a span of six days. To many Christians this causes a dilemma, do they trust Gods Word as presented in Genesis or do they trust science? Do they choose creation or evolution? The focus of this paper will be to help Christians renew their faith in the Word of God specifically as it relates to the question of the age of the earth. Is it billions of years old as the idea of evolution teaches or is it a few thousand years old as the Bible teaches? In our current education system evolution has been treated as science rather than theory. The truth is that true science is characterized by observation, measurement and repeatability. Yet no scientist has ever observed evolution, the supposed evolutionary processes occur to slowly to measure, and occurs in non repeatable steps.1 Therefore evolution does not fit a real scientific method. Because the Bible teaches that God created the earth in six literal days, the authority of Scripture, the character of God and the foundation of the Gospel are at stake if we accept the argument that the earth is millions of years old. The days of creation The first question I want to explore is: Were the six days of creation literal days? When you read Genesis chapter 1 and remove all outside presuppositions from your mind it is clear that God says he created the earth, the universe and all that is within it in six literal days. The reason people tend to not take these days as literal days is because they think that science has proven the earth is billions of years old. However there is no evidence or age dating method that will tell us
1

David A. Meunier, The Fable The Fossils And The Flood (Paducah, KY: Turner Publishing Company, 2001) 4.

4 how old the earth is in fact much of science supports a young earth as indicated by the Bible. Some examples of Christians attempts to harmonize the Bible with billions of years are the day age theory and the gap theory. The day age theory is an attempt to make the Bible compatible with the non biblical theory of an earth that is billions of years old. This theory states that the days of creation were not actual days but were long periods of time. In this theory God did not create in six literal days but he created over six long periods of time. Proponents of this view hold to the belief that the Hebrew word for day (yom) does not always mean an ordinary day. It could mean in some cases a period of time. When you study the grammar and context of Genesis 1 you find that the days of creation were twenty four hours long. Whenever the Hebrew word yom is used with a number for instance first, second or third it can only mean an ordinary day. In addition if the Hebrew word yom is used with the words evening and morning it can mean only an ordinary day.2 When the Hebrew word yom is used with the word for night, layil or layla, it always means the night portion of a twenty four hour cycle.3 Any one of these grammatical context points strongly to a twenty four hour day and when you consider that all three are present it makes it almost irrefutable that the days spoken of are in fact twenty four hour days. If in fact God wanted to communicate to us that the days were literal twenty four hour days he could not have done it anymore clearly and conversely if God created over millions of years he could not have been more misleading than is written in this grammatical context.4 The only way the fourth commandment Remember the Sabbath day to keep it Holy makes any sense is to follow the proper context for the length of the creation day. If it were a long age then that would be saying we are to rest for long ages rather than resting for a day. Another
2 3

Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, Inc., 2004) 67. Ibid., 82. 4 Ibid., 105.

5 example that proves the days are not long periods of time is the fact that Adam, created on day six, lived through day six and day seven yet the Bible tells us he died when he was 930 years old. The only way his age could be stated like this is if days six and seven were actual 24 hour days.5 Again as stated before the day age theory is an attempt to make room for long ages of time to accommodate the long ages of evolutionary geology.6 Another theory that attempts to harmonize the Bible with an earth that is billions of years old is the Gap Theory. The Gap Theory basically allows for billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 as an accommodation to science. The gap theory teaches that there was an original creation either before verse 1 or between verses 1 and 2 in which Lucifer rebelled and the earth became chaotic. Paul Enns explains that the grammar of Genesis 1:1-2 does not allow for a gap. Verse 1 is an independent clause while verse 2 contains three circumstantial clauses and is connected to verse 3.7 The gap theory is not based on solid exegesis but is another attempt to harmonize the Bible with current scientific views. The idea that the days of creation in Genesis 1 were not literal days did not start with the theory of evolution. Origen, the Alexandrian church father who lived from A.D. 185 254 is credited with being the first to take them as allegorical and non literal. Augustine also believed that the days of creation were allegorical. The distinction in their thinking that separates them from old earth thinking is the fact that they believed God created in a moment of time and could not understand how it could take him as long as six days.8 The idea of an old earth began in the late eighteenth century. Before that time almost exclusively people believed in the Biblical account of an earth that is only thousands of years
5 6

Ken Ham, The Lie: Evolution, (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, Inc, 1987) 159. Ibid., 172. 7 Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology Revised and Expanded (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2008) 315. 8 Gerhard F. Hasel, The Days Of Creation In Genesis 1: Literal Days Or Figurative Periods/Epochs Of Time?, Accessed February 27, 2012, http://www.grisda.org/origins/21005.htm 6.

6 old. During the Protestant Reformation there was a drive to return to Scripture and remove external sources of interpretation. Martin Luther rejected the earlier church fathers that claimed God had created in a moment of time rather than six days. He said We assert that Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively, i.e. that the world, with all its creatures, was created within six days as the words read.9 The Bible doesnt tell us exactly how old the earth is however as stated earlier a reading of the Bible with all other presuppositions removed tells us that God created in six literal days. This is not at all inconsistent with his nature. When God created Adam and Eve they were created as adults not as babies so he created them with the appearance of age. In the book of John chapter 2 Jesus, who was God made flesh, created wine which under normal circumstances takes time to age yet when the governor of the feast sampled the wine he indicated that it was better than what they had before indicating that it was created with the appearance of age. When Jesus fed the five thousand he created fish which were real fish, they were fully developed indicating age. So we see that creating things with the appearance of age is actually in harmony with Gods normal pattern of creation.10 We arent told that when God created plant life he also created all the nutrients the plants would need to survive but they were obviously present in the soil or the plants would have died. The soil must have been created with the appearance of age. Scientific support for a young earth One factor evolutionist point to in support of their theory for billions of years is called the distant starlight problem.11 This states that the universe must be billions of years old because it would take that long for the light to get to earth. This view doesnt take into account that God could have created the stars with the light already reaching the earth. The Bible tells us in
9

Ewald Plass, What Martin Luther Says: A Practical In-Home Authology for the Active Christian, (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1997) 1523. 10 Thomas F. Heinze, Creation vs. Evolution, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1973) 105. 11 Jason Lisle, Taking Back Astronomy, (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, Inc., 2009) 46-47.

7 Genesis 1:15 that God created the lights in the sky to give light upon the earth so it makes sense that God would have created them with the light already reaching the earth. The earths magnetic field is another evidence that would point us to an earth that is relatively young in age. Since measurement of the earths magnetic field began in 1835 it has been decaying at a rate of five percent per century. In support of this fact archeological measurements show that the earths magnetic field was forty percent stronger in A.D. 1000 than it is today.12 Based on these observations scientist can calculate that the earth is at maximum 10,000 years old. An earth older than that would demand that the magnetic field were so strong that it would have melted the earth.13 In addition to the problems that a much stronger earth magnetic field present for life existing on earth it presents a very big problem for carbon 14 dating which we will discuss later in this paper. In essence carbon 14 is produced by cosmic rays bombarding the outer atmosphere of the earth. If the earth were billions of years old the magnetic field would have been much stronger in the past which would alter the amount of carbon 14 therefore the results from this dating method become even more suspect than they currently are.14 We also know that the magnetic fields of Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are very strong.15 If the universe were really billions of years old the strong magnetic fields of these planets would have to have become much weaker than they currently are today. Research done by Dr. Russ Humphreys, a physicist at the Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico has produced a model of the planets and their magnetic fields. This model estimates the initial strength of each planets magnetic field at the time of creation. The model then calculates what the present strengths would be, based upon six thousand years of decay. This model has been very accurate in accounting for the present magnetic fields of all known
12 13

Sarfati, Refuting Compromise, 335. Ibid., 335. 14 John D. Morris, The Young Earth (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, Inc. 1994) 75. 15 Lisle, Taking Back Astronomy, 60.

8 planets. More impressive is the fact that Dr. Humphreys was able to accurately predict the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune before they were measured by the spacecraft Voyager.16 The relationship between the moon and the earth also is consistent with a young earth. A condition known as recession of the moon exist, this is caused by the fact that the earth rotates faster than the moon orbits the earth. This causes tidal bulges which pull forward on the moon causing it to gradually spiral outward and further away from the earth. The moon moves about an inch and a half away from the earth each year. Given the framework of six thousand years the earth and moon would have been approximately 800 feet closer together at creation. But this creates a big problem for those that believe in a much older earth because at this rate of movement the earth and moon would have been touching less than 1.5 billion years ago therefore the moon cannot be as old as scientist proclaim.17 Helium is produced beneath the earths surface and is introduced into the earths atmosphere at a measureable rate. The flux of helium from the earth into the atmosphere occurs at a greater rate than the flux of helium from the atmosphere into space. Given the current rates of flux, if the earths atmosphere began with no helium present it would take about two million years to accumulate the current levels of helium in our atmosphere.18 This is not proof that the earths atmosphere is two million years old but it is proof that it could be no older than two million years old. This is contradictory to the current evolutionary estimate of 4.5 billion years of age for the earth. Like other dating processes some assumptions are made in this theory. There is a big difference however in the outcome if these assumptions are wrong. If they were wrong it would show an earth that is even younger than these prove. For example, the assumption is made that the rate of accumulation of helium has been constant throughout history. It is possible however
16 17

Ibid., 63-64. Ibid., 54-55. 18 Larry Vardiman, The Age of the Earths Atmosphere: A Study of the Helium Flux through the Atmosphere (El Cajon, CA: Institute of Creation Research, 1990) 28.

9 that during the catastrophic flood of Noahs day the rate was much greater due to the turmoil that the earth was under. This would reduce the maximum age of the earth. The assumption is made that when the atmosphere was formed no helium existed in the atmosphere. If this assumption is wrong it would further reduce the maximum age of the atmosphere.19 What is considered one of the most important gauges of the earths age is through radioactive dating methods. Stated very simply, isotopes of certain elements disintegrate into isotopes of other elements and the rate of disintegration can be measured. Therefore, if both the parent isotope and the daughter isotope are found in a rock it is relatively simple to determine how long the daughter isotope has been accumulating due to radioactive decay. For example uranium disintegrates into lead very slowly so this method can be used to measure supposed long periods of time or millions and billions of years and this is how modern scientist arrive at an age of the earth that is billions of years old. A simple analogy of this is to think of an hour glass, the upper chamber of the hour glass represents the parent isotope and the lower chamber represents the daughter isotope. If you know the rate at which the grains of sand fall and you measure how much sand is in the upper chamber and how much sand is in the lower chamber you can tell how long the hour glass has been running and you will know when the process started. Applied to radioactive decay the starting time is when the rock was formed and therefore you can arrive at the age of the rock.20 While the ability to measure this rate of disintegration is extremely accurate and reliable what must be understood is that these measurements are dependent upon assumptions made to interpret the data. Assumption number one is that we know the original composition of the rock. In other words we have to assume that there was no daughter isotope existent in the rock when it
19 20

Morris, The Young Earth, 83-84. Andrew A. Snelling, Earths Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation and the Flood Volume 2 (Dallas, TX: Institute of Creation Research, 2009) 798-799.

10 was formed, all daughter isotope was derived by radioactive decay. Assumption number two is that neither the parent or daughter isotope lost or gained any atoms other than through the process of radioactive decay. Assumption number three is that the rate of decay of the parent isotope has remained constant since its origin.21 Because no human was present during the formation of the rock to measure for daughter isotope we cannot know if it was present. Because no human was present during the history of the rock we cannot know that the rock didnt lose or gain atoms from another source and we cannot know if the rate of radioactive decay remained constant throughout the history of the rock. These assumptions are not provable and as stated earlier one of the tenets of true science is observation. It would logically follow that radioactive dating methods are suspect science at best. Another dating method which has been utilized is known as carbon 14 dating. This method can only be used to date materials that contain carbon and were once living such as bones, plants and fleshy parts. Simply stated carbon 14 is a radioactive isotope formed when nitrogen 14 is altered in the outer atmosphere. The ratio of radioactive carbon 14 to stable carbon 12 can be measured. Once a plant or animal dies and stops interacting with the environment it stops taking in the normal ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 14. The carbon 14 begins to decay and turn back into nitrogen 14 thus changing the carbon 12 to carbon 14 ratio over time. By observing these measurements it can be determined when the plant or animal stopped taking in carbon 14 and thus arrive at a time of death.22

As with other dating methods the problem with the carbon 14 dating method is that it is based upon assumptions that cannot be proven. There are two basic assumptions with carbon 14

21 22

Ibid., 800-801. Morris, The Young Earth, 65.

11 dating. First the cosmic ray influx has to have been constant. Second the carbon 14 concentration in the carbon dioxide cycle must remain constant.23 In addition care has to be taken to ensure that the samples being examined have not been contaminated by outside sources of carbon. Another assumption that is made is that there is equilibrium between carbon 14 formation and decay. This however has been proven to not be the case and in fact carbon 14 is constantly increasing. To overcome this discrepancy scientist have come up with what they call the calibration curve which allows them to calibrate the carbon 14 method with objects of a know age. Often times the dates arrived at by carbon 14 dating are in conflict with these historically derived dates.24 In some respects radiocarbon dating can actually lend validity to the biblical account of creation and a young earth. Consider research done by R. L. Whitelaw, Professor of Nuclear and Mechanical Engineering at Virginia Polytechnic. Whitehall examined fifteen thousand dates that have been determined by carbon 14 dating. His assumption was that in samples that were billions of years old the carbon 14 would have been depleted and thus the item would be undateable using carbon 14 because the carbon 14 would have been depleted completely. He expected to find thousands of samples that due to their age had an absence of carbon 14. What he found was quite different. Out of the fifteen thousand dates examined only three are called infinite meaning they could not be dated because of an absence of carbon 14. Interestingly none of the human remains dated were given an age over six thousand years old.25 Given these assumptions and discrepancies we can see that the carbon 14 dating method is not as accurate as we are told. In fact this method is coming under growing scrutiny in the scientific world albeit not openly. Scientist Robert E. Lee put it this way. The troubles of the
23 24

Snelling, Earths Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation and the Flood Volume 2, 856. Morris, The Young Earth, 65. 25 Heinze, Creation vs. Evolution, 43.

12 radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.26 A common application of the carbon 14 dating method seems to follow this pattern. If the carbon 14 dates support the scientist theory they include them, if the carbon 14 dates do not entirely contradict their theory they include them in a footnote but if they are completely out of date with the scientist theory they are discarded.27 Why the age of the earth matters The Bibles teaching in Genesis chapter one forms the foundation upon which all other biblical truth stands. You might ask why all of this matters. Is this debate relevant to the message we are supposed to take to the world? The message of the salvation found through Jesus Christ. A belief in an earth that is billions of years old requires a belief in death before sin and the fall of man which is contrary to what the Bible teaches. God told us in the Bible that death entered into the world as a result of Adams sin. Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. 1

26 27

Robert E. Lee, Radiocarbon, Ages in Error, (Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1981) 9, 29. Snelling, Earths Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation and the Flood Volume 2, 857.

13 Corinthians 15:21 confirms this stating For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. We must allow the Bible to speak to us through its context rather than trying to make it conform to ideas outside of scripture. If we allow so called science to determine our understanding of Scripture unbelief in more than just the Biblical record of the age of the earth will occur. For example science would say that a person cannot be raised from the dead yet the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead and is alive today.28 Mark 16:19 tells us that after appearing several times after his death he ascended up into heaven and was seated at the right hand of his Father where he remains today until his second coming. What about our relationship to God The theory that the earth is billions of years old is propagated to support the theory of evolution because the process of evolution requires billions of years. Evolution was embraced mainly for philosophical reasons because people were looking for an explanation of origins that did not include creation by God. The implication of creation is that people have a responsibility to the Creator. Thus evolution really looks more like religion than science.29 Based upon the fact that science does not support long ages of time necessary for evolution one must consider the possibility that there is a creator and if there is a creator we must consider our relationship to the creator. The Bible tells us in Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Yes all men, including you, have come short of Heaven because of sin. Romans 6:23 tells us For the wages of sin is death, because you are a sinner, you are condemned to death. This includes eternal separation from God in a place called Hell. But the good news is that Christ died for our sins 1 Corinthians 15:3. Jesus paid the entire price on the

28 29

Ken Ham, Six Days or Millions of Years, (Petersburg, KY: Answers In Genesis, 2002) 6. Meunier, The Fable The Fossils And The Flood, 4.

14 cross for your sin. Although we cannot understand how, God said my sins and your sins were laid upon Jesus and He died in our place. The Bible tells us The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord Romans 6:23. God offers you freely this gift. It is yours if you will believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay for your sins and accept it as your only way of salvation. Romans 10:13 proclaims For whosoever shall call upon the name of the LORD shall be saved. Whosoever means you, if you believe in Jesus Christ death, burial and resurrection for the salvation of your soul, you can be one hundred percent sure you are going to heaven. Would you like to trust in what Jesus has done for you? Do you want to accept him as your Savior? Will you now call upon the LORD Jesus Christ, asking him to forgive your sins and save you? You can do so simply by talking to him right now. Simply pray: Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner and in need of a Savior, and believing that you died for me personally, I now receive you as my Savior. Thank you for saving me. Amen. If you just prayed that prayer and meant it in your heart the Bible promises that you are saved from the penalty of your sin. Acts 16:31 tells us Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. Conclusion While dating methods have not been disproven and at some points give dates that are accurate the discrepancies involved and the questionable assumptions they are based on should give the Christian with a Biblical world view confidence to stand on the truth found in the Bible rather than trying to conform to speculative science. Christians should build their world view on what the Bible teaches not on what science teaches.

15 Weston Fields stated it this way, We must forever rid ourselves of harmonizations with science which are based on its intimidating power.30 Kurt Wise a young age creationist and geologist explains it nicely when he says While there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth I believe in a young earth because that is my understanding of scripture.31 Now that we can see the powerful evidence supporting the Bible in the area of the age of the earth we no longer need to cling to the compromised positions such as the day age theory or the gap theory. It is imperative that Christians give up these positions and embrace the authority of the Bible as the Word of God. There is great danger in rejecting the history of the Bible. It is a short trip from rejection of the Bibles history to rejection of the Bibles theology and morality. The Authority of Scripture, the character of God, the doctrine of death and the foundation of the Gospel message are at stake in this argument. If Genesis chapter one is not true literal history then faith in the rest of the Bible is undermined to a great extent including its teaching on salvation through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
30

Weston Fields, Unformed and Unfilled: A Critique of the Gap Theory, (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, Inc., 2005) 222. 31 John F. Ashton, In Six Days: Why 50 Scientist Choose to Believe in Creation, (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, Inc., 2000) 355.

16

Ashton, John F. In Six Days: Why 50 Scientist Choose to Believe in Creation, Green Forest, Master Books, Inc., 2000. Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology Chicago, Moody Publishers, 2008. Fields, Weston. Unformed and Unfilled: A Critique of the Gap Theory, Green Forest, Master Books, Inc., 2005. Ham, Ken. The Lie: Evolution, Green Forest, Master Books Inc., 1987. Ham, Ken. Six Days or Millions of Years, Petersburg, Answers In Genesis, 2002. Hasel, Gerhard F. The Days Of Creation In Genesis 1: Literal Days Or Figurative Periods/Epochs Of Time?, http://www.grisda.org/origins/21005.htm, Accessed February 27, 2012. Heinze, Thomas F. Creation vs. Evolution, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1973. Lee, Robert E. Radiocarbon, Ages in Error, Canada, Anthropological Journal of Canada, 1981. Lisle, Jason. Taking Back Astronomy, Green Forest, Master Books, Inc., 2009. Meunier, David A. The Fable The Fossils And The Flood, Paducah, Turner Publishing Company, 2001. Morris, John D. The Young Earth, Green Forest, Master Books, Inc. 1994. Plass, Ewald. What Martin Luther Says: A Practical In-Home Authology for the Active Christian, St. Louis, 2006. Sarfati, Jonathan. Refuting Compromise, Green Forest, Master Books, Inc., 2004. Snelling, Andrew A. Earths Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation and the Flood Volume 2, Dallas, Institute of Creation Research, 2009. Vardiman, Larry. The Age of the Earths Atmosphere: A Study of the Helium Flux through the Atmosphere, El Cajon, 1990.