Theology vs. Geology: How old is Earth?

As we near the conclusion of our argument, one nagging doubt may still linger in the minds of many Christians: how to reconcile the Creation week of Genesis with a secular account involving development over millions of years. Creationists themselves are divided over this question. Many Christians attempt to explain the seeming age of the earth by attributing natural phenomena like the Grand Canyon to the effects of Noah’s Flood. They seem to fear that a very old earth could not be accommodated by the account of creation in Genesis. But a closer look at the verses comprising the Creation story reveals that there really isn’t any reason to panic at the thought of an ancient planet.

As the Creation week progresses in Genesis, a pattern emerges with the close of each day. The writer of Genesis concluded the first six days with the phrase, “And there was evening, and there was morning—the Xth day.”[1] But interestingly enough, the word day in Hebrew as well as English does not have to mean a period of 24 hours. In Genesis, the Hebrew word yowm, translated day, means any of four times: from sunrise to sunset, from sunset to sunset, a period of several years, or an age or epoch. The Hebrew word ‘ereb, translated evening, also means “sunset”, “night”, or “ending of the day”. The Hebrew word boqer, translated morning, also means “sunrise”, “coming of light”, “beginning of day” or “dawning”, sometimes metaphorical.[2],[3]

The idea that the days of creation may have varied in length is strengthened when you consider the events of the sixth day: first, God creates all the land-dwelling animals. Then He creates Adam from the dust of the ground, moves him into the Garden of Eden, causes all the plants to grow, and allows Adam to see and name all the animals of earth. As no suitable helper for Adam is found, God then puts him into a deep sleep, performs a ribectomy, and forms Eve from the rib. When Adam awakes and sees his wife, he says, “This at last is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh…” This would seem to indicate that some time had gone by since Adam became aware of his need for a mate.

Another interesting point is made by astronomer Hugh Ross: the seventh day of creation is not closed the way the others were. “Of the first six creation days the Genesis writer says, [NIV] “…there was evening, and there was morning—the Xth day.” This statement indicates that each of the first six creation days had a beginning and an ending. However, for the seventh creation day no such statement appears either in Genesis 1-2 or anywhere else in the Bible. Given the parallel structure for marking the creation days, this distinct change in form strongly suggests that this day has (or had) not yet ended.”[4

Ross goes on to point out: “The fossil record provides another piece of evidence for an ongoing seventh day of rest. According to the fossils, more and more species of life came into existence through the millennia before modern man. Through time, the number of extinctions nearly balanced the number of introductions, but introductions remained slightly more numerous. Then came mankind. In the years of human history, the extinction rate has remained high while the introduction rate measures a virtual zero.”[5]

Of course, none of this is intended to disprove the idea that God created the world in a literal week. My intention is merely to show that the geological contention of an older Earth need not be the cause of a crisis of faith. After all, as Psalm 90 (attributed to Moses) says, “…a thousand years in [God’s] sight are like a day that has just gone by.”[6] Who are we to restrict Him to our idea of what a day should be?

We have exposed the problems for evolution as shown in the present and in the past. We have seen to what extent this “scientific” theory relies on metaphysical arguments, and we have shown that an ancient earth poses no problem for the Biblical account of Creation. There are other issues which I could have explored, such as evolution’s classification system and the evidence from DNA, but sadly, they fall outside the scope of this paper. I will say this in closing: the evolution debate is far from over, but if we arm ourselves with facts, avoid the dogmatism now rampant in the Darwinist camp, and prepare ourselves to stand for truth, we may yet be able to turn the tide and revive critical thought in American schools. Once the arguments for both sides are made clear and people are able to judge the truth for themselves, we stand only to gain.   

Bibliography

In writing this essay, I have drawn information and opinions from a wide variety of sources. However, the majority of the footnoted material shown was compiled in these books, the authors and editors of which I owe a great debt of gratitude, not only for the resources they provided me, but also for their commitment to helping Creationists and evolutionists alike to examine scientific issues in a critical, fair-minded way.

·        Darwin’s God, Cornelius Hunter: Brazos Press, 2001.

·        Creation and Evolution, Alan Hayward: Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, 1995.

·        The Fingerprint of God, Hugh Ross: Whitaker House, New Kensington, 1989.

·        Signs of Intelligence, ed. William A. Dembski and James M. Kushiner, Brazos Press, 2001.

·        Know Why You Believe, 3^rd ed., Paul Little: InterVarsity Press, 1988.

Back to Evolution page

Back to Main