The age and origin of the universe is a topic that is relevant to Christian apologetics. In fact, many "apologetics" classes at Christian schools focus almost entirely on some form of Creationism (usually young-earth in my experience).
The age of the universe comes up primarily in this way: If the universe is quite young, then there is not time for many things that exist (such as solar systems or complex living organisms) to have come about via purely naturalistic means. The conclusion, then, is that supernatural action of some sort is required. Contrarily, if the universe is old, there may have been sufficient time for many things that exist to have come about via purely naturalistic means, though oldness does not prove that any or all did arise so. The result is that solid evidence for a young universe seems like it would produce a very strong case against naturalism, which might be good for theistic creationism and theism, provided there are not a large number of other, reasonable-sounding non-naturalistic theories. On the other hand, old age does not hurt theistic creationism apart from possibly making naturalism more plausible. Heads we win, tails, we play a different game.
Unlike the age issue, where either side is compatible with theistic creation, the origins issue matters. Nicene Christians believe that God is the "maker of heaven and earth". Any theory of origins that is incompatible with that statement is incompatible with the theistic creationism of Nicene Christianity. This series will focus mainly on age issues, but may touch on origins apart from age as well.
It seems to me that the scientfic arguments concerning the age of the universe are overwhelmingly in favor of an age measured in billions, not thousands of years. For me, the most convincing pieces of evidence are those concerned with starlight, but many other evidences exist. That, however, is a topic for another post, maybe even by another person on another blog. We'll see.
My interest in this series is to examine the issue from a purely biblical perspective to the greatest extent possible. That is, I want to examine the issue exclusively in the light of what the Bible says, or doesn't say, about the age of the universe. Now, it should be clear that at this point, I already have a bias based on the scientific evidence, and I will most likely fail in ignoring that bias. I'll try my best anyway. One comfort I have is that the old-universe perspective is by no means new within the Church, or the history of Biblical interpretation. Many early Church fathers and Judaic scholars took an old or unspecified age perspective, and it cannot be said that they were much influenced by modern scientific evidence, so it is possible to come to those interpretations without the bias of modern evidence.
For purposes of this discussion, I will assume that Biblical inerrancy is to be preserved. I know not all Christians accept total Biblical inerrancy, or even exactly the same Bible, but I don't believe there is widespread agreement on what passages may contain errors, especially considering the inerrancy folks, who won't agree on any of them, so I can't just throw out difficult or inconvenient passages. I'll try to produce the most consistent account I can. Furthermore, I'll at least try to start with a "plain" reading, with the understanding that the text of the Bible contains cultural and linguistic peculiarities and makes use of literary devices. I'll do my best to explain the reasons for my reading. Also for purposes of this discussion, I will not be actively considering the books considered apocryphal by Protestants. This is a somewhat unfortunate result of my own unfamiliarity with these books, and I welcome any input about anything these books mention about creation or any age issues.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
From the apocrypha:
ReplyDelete1 Life is short and painful,
and there is no remedy for death --
no one returns from the grave.
2 We are born by mere chance,
and when we die, it is as though we never were.
The breath in our nostrils is but a wisp of smoke,
and our reason is just a spark kept alive by the beating of our hearts
3 and when that spark goes out, our body will turn to ashes,
and our spirit will disperse like empty air.
4 Even our name will be forgotten in time,
and no one will remember our works.
Our life will vanish
like the last wisp of a cloud,
dissipate like a mist
chased away by the heat of the sun.
5 Our time is a passing shadow.
We are sealed in our death,
and cannot return.
6 So let us enjoy the good things around us,
and make full use of the world, as in youth.
7 Let us take our fill of fine wines and perfumes,
and let no spring flower pass us by.
8 Let us crown ourselves with rosebuds before they wither;
9 Let none of us miss his share of revelry;
Let us everywhere leave signs of joy,
For this is our share, and this is our lot.
...
431 And let our methods have clear pre- and post-conditions, and let our classes have useful invariants.
432 And let our types, like our characters, be inferred by their use; and guarantee unto us at compile time that this contract cannot be broken.
433 And let us have faith that all tail recursions will be eliminated, lest we feel obligated to loop unclearly.
434 And let us fairly review the code of our enemies as they promptly complete their reviews of our code.
...
845 And let us reread those books we have read before; and refrain from rereading anything we have not read.
...
928 And let us blog without pause, but also pause without blog.
Then again, I may be reasoning incorrectly.