Gairney Bridge

Even though I am personally against it exegetically, I believe it is possible to be a faithful Christian and believe in an old earth. Of course, presuppositions will factor into this, but as long as one holds to the historicity of Genesis 1-11 and believes that the man and woman were a special creation by God, I don’t have huge problems. There may be questions I would want to ask, but generally I would simply choose to disagree and embrace the other person as a brother or sister in Christ.

The reason I am posting this is because of a recent thread at World Magazine’s blog site about a story where the proposed age of the Grand Canyon has actually be increased (from 6 million years to 17 million years). There are, of course, presuppositions involved in this: the rejection of a catastrophic geological event (e.g., a global flood) will necessitate a uniformity of nature that requires large periods of time to create such a wonder. Then again, I have a friend who has actually been to the Grand Canyon, and the design of the formation (the slope of the top of the canyon plain is not flat, but sloped in the wrong direction, meaning that the river flowing through the canyon would have had to flow uphill at some point the create the formation over long periods of time) tends to suggest that the popular explanation has some problems, or at least things that must be accounted for.

We all have presuppositions (there is no neutrality of thought), and our presuppositions tend to cause us to ignore those things that do not fit neatly into our particular view of the world. For example, there is evidence that tends to go against an old earth theory, but that evidence tends to be ignored or rejected because it does not fit with the popular naturalistic view of the formation of the earth. Here is a brief list of some of the contrary evidences:

• Meteor dust: the amount of meteor dust on the earth and the moon is far less than it should be if the earth were billions of years old.
• Moon recession: the length of the earth’s rotational period, which is lengthening due to the influence of tidal forces, results in a compensation in change in the moon’s orbit. Had this been happening for billions of years, the moon would be much farther from the earth than it is now, even if it had begun by being in contact with the earth.
• Hot planet: the earth (along with the moon and at least 5 other planets) is too hot internally to have been losing heat at the present rate for a period of billions of years.
• Volcanic debris: if volcanic debris had been deposited on the earth’s surface at its present rate for billions of years, it would have produced an amount roughly equivalent to 10 times the sediment that currently exists on the earth.
• Evidence of catastrophic upheaval: even uniformitarian geologists admit that the sediments existing on the earth were deposited during catastrophic floods. The concession, though, is that there were numerous localized floods occurring over vast periods of time. The evidence, however, suggests that there was one such event, a worldwide flood, which would do damage to the uniformitarian theories and mitigate against the necessity of an old earth (e.g., the widespread existence of polystrate fossils buried in a short time span, the preservation of soft tissues and DNA of some fossils (see here, here, here, and here for examples), the absence of bioturbidity and erosion in successive geological layers, the existence of coal deposits and fossilized trees in Antarctica, the absence of meteorite remains in the deeper levels of geological formation, etc.).

These observations only scratch the surface (pun intended!) of the evidence that tends to lean against an old earth. There are many more facts out there, and I would point the reader to a couple more resources: the essay by C. Stuart Patterson — a Ph.D. chemist and former department head at Furman University — entitled “Evidences for a Young Earth” in Did God Create in 6 Days?; Plain Talk about Genesis, written by John K. Reed — who holds a Ph.D. in geology; and Creation and Change by Douglas Kelley). Do they prove a young earth? Not necessarily. But when such evidence of a young earth is presented, it tends to be rejected out of hand (”That can’t be true! We know the earth is very old! There must be some other reason, if it doesn’t fit the current data!”) rather than the presupposition itself being modified. Science itself tends to be very slow to change its theories (not necessarily a bad thing), but being dogmatic about certain things, when there is strong contrary evidence that needs to be accounted for, is not always the most prudent approach. This, of course, does not in any way suggest that we reject the scientific enterprise, but rather than scientific naturalism and postivism are the most likely culprits. There are massive problems with the current theories, but these are not being discussed, at least among the general public in many cases. The dogma is set forth (and woe be to anyone who speaks out against it!), but the dogma should itself be subject to reasonable critique. This is all that is being asked for.

I shall close with an anecdote: I surprised my wife on her birthday a few years ago with a white water rafting trip in North Carolina. We were in a raft with a family who happened to be PCA. During the trip our guide asked a question: “Does anybody know the oldest mountain range in the world?” (the Appalachian Mountains was supposed to be the answer). I replied, “I think they’re all about the same age.” The family thought it was funny!

Update: It was brought to my attention that the moondust argument is no longer considered to be a valid one, even by Young Earth Creationists. The reason is that the initial estimates for massive amounts of moondust — complied, btw, by evolutionists — were wrong. To compensate for this error on my part, I link the reader to this article, more up-to-date, with additional evidences that contradict the view of an old earth.

Second Update: In the comments, blogger Plumberpop mentioned an incident, years ago, in which a geology team found some unusual pollen findings in the Grand Canyon. Those who wish to read about this (the geologist who led the team died in 1992, so there is little or nothing recent from that original study) can do so here, here, and here. Another blogger has provided a critique of the research here and here (the first of this links is to a website sponsored by Australian Skeptics; read an exchange/debate between Creationists and these Evolutionists here). And, for a rebuttal to the critiques, see here. Let it not be said I did not present both sides!