May I first apologise to those of you for whom young earth creationism is a precious doctrine. I know how unnerving it is to be invited to reconsider the truths on which we have built our understanding of God. It’s always reassuring when such re-examination ends up confirming what we always thought we knew. Whatever your thoughts on creationism, I do hope the result of this article ends up being encouraging for you; though if it fails to shake your convictions, then so be it.
An unappreciated truth?
As a new Christian, bursting with zeal for Jesus and delight in the Bible, I adopted young earth creationism (YEC) from the inspiring people around me at that point in time. It was a stretch, as school had taught me about the geological levels of rock and therefore the great age of the earth. But there’s a secret joy in the feeling that you’ve discovered something that most people don’t know, and I felt proud that, in YEC, God had shown me an unappreciated truth.
The problem was that, over the years that followed, the scientific evidence for the great age of the earth, coming from many different sources, began to look incontrovertible. I took refuge in the notion that God could have made the earth very recently (say eight to ten thousand years ago) but with the appearance of great age. He could certainly have made the starlight without the very ancient stars it appeared to evidence. Perhaps God made the earth in its mature form, as He did with Adam? But the idea that the observable Universe was not telling the truth to human observers left me feeling uncomfortable.
God’s Two Books
What about the Medieval idea of ‘God’s Two Books’: the Book of Nature (general revelation of God as creator) and the Book of Scripture (special revelation of Christ and the gospel)? If the Book of Nature was not dealing in reality and needed to be ‘translated’ (ie. the earth looked old but was really new), then how did that affect our ability to trust God?
It was hard to let go of the young earth belief because accepting the great age of the earth, as taught by evolutionary theory, seemed like also accepting evolution, which I could not do.
It was hard to let go of the young earth belief because accepting the great age of the earth, as taught by evolutionary theory, seemed like also accepting evolution, which I could not do.
Discovering Intelligent Design
When I encountered the Intelligent Design writers in the 1980s, I began to see that accepting the great age of the earth does not mean submitting to the doctrine of evolution. The two ideas are not Siamese twins. The next hurdle for me was what to do with Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Could the six days of creation honestly be interpreted as symbolic rather than as six periods of 24 hours?
With some caution and reluctance, I studied John H. Walton’s Lost World of Genesis One and came away cautiously thinking that his Temple Inauguration explanation seemed honouring to God and to the writer of Genesis. (Too much to explain here, I’m afraid, but please refer to the book). Time and further research and prayer have solidified that conclusion for me.
Discarding pet theories
Probably the most important reason I’m writing this article today is for my grandkids. All three of my grown-up children are in Christ and in church, so they are flying. My seven grandchildren, however, are growing up into a confused, and confusing, world of multiple competing ideologies. If they come through to adulthood as Christians, for which I earnestly hope and pray, they will have many challenges living counter-culturally in a crazy world. But we can, at least, present them with a gospel now which doesn’t further complicate life for them.
By that I mean that the Christianity we offer to that generation must be as shorn as possible of our pet theories and additions.
By that I mean that the Christianity we offer to that generation must be as shorn as possible of our pet theories and additions. In that category I would include all the teaching of a rapture of the Church separate from the final return of Christ. For more than a hundred years, this has caused much of the Church to detach from reality. Many are dreaming of a rescue which looks suspiciously like the arrival of the American cavalry to drive the Indians away from the embattled wagons of the frontier cowboys.
Can I suggest that, in the same way, loading the Gospel down with young earth creationism will also distract from the true miracle of Christianity – the grace of God towards broken humanity, received through faith in the atoning work of Christ on the cross and His resurrection? The 'Young earth' addition requires young people to deny what seems to me the rock-solid scientific evidence (pardon the pun) of the great age of the earth. At the point that they can no longer swallow the YEC reading of Genesis, aren’t they likely to jettison the whole Bible?
Letting go of the 'Young Earth'
Now of course God could certainly have made the earth with the appearance of age. He is the God of miracles. He is supernatural. He still heals today. Angels are real and so is Satan and so is hell. I am not declaring a materialist gospel. God gave us science in the first place as really a continuation of Adam’s naming of the animals and part of the Genesis mandate to subdue the earth.
The best scientists, including all the Christian pioneers of science, looked through both eyes at the creation, seeing both matter and also purpose.
It’s only since Darwin that scientists have insisted that science can deal only in mechanical, materialist explanations. The best scientists, including all the Christian pioneers of science, looked through both eyes at the creation, seeing both matter and also purpose.
We will consider the argument for design in more detail in my next article. Meantime, I close with the open question that while it's usually older things which need to be retired, is it now time to let the 'Young earth' get its pipe and slippers?
Andy Fraser is a retired pastor and university lecturer with concerns for the generation of his seven grandkids. (He can be contacted by clicking here)
