The age of the earth
I don’t think we can prove from science that the earth is not millions of years old. Furthermore, and more to the point, I don’t think we need to be able to prove it. If scientists could prove beyond reasonable dispute that the material (non-living) creation was billions of years old you and I would not only have to accept it, we would be glad to accept. Why would we want to deny clearly established truth?
But that’s just the issue, isn’t it? The "proof" that the material universe (our organized system) is billions of years old is based on various hypotheses and radio-metric clocks, all of which rests on various assumptions embodied in the hypotheses and the clocks. Despite the scoffing by some (maybe most) scientists the dating of the fossil record does depend on major assumptions about the rocks in which they are found. Rates given to the laying down of strata still depend on pre-Velikovsky uniformitarianism and the rate of leaching from radioactive materials depends on existing conditions, original amounts and if the present rate was always as it is. This kind of talk irritates some scientists but they should try to control themselves as we (often) fearful believers should try to control ourselves. I know a fine man (a believer) who thinks that if the earth itself isn’t something like 6,000 years old that the Bible is false. I’m not one of those. But scientists haven’t proved an immense age for creation. Whether they are irritated with us or not, it’s still possible for God to have created the (organized) creation 6,000 years ago and made it "full grown". If by a miracle I willed a completed house into existence in an instant I could understand a builder who didn’t know that I did it—I could understand him thinking it took, say, six weeks or three months. He would be working on normal rates and normal procedures.
Nor do I think that I can go to Genesis and prove the material creation is something like 6,000—10,000 years old. Others are sure they can but I can’t.
When it comes to living creatures, I think we move into an entirely different realm. I think the theory of the evolution of humans from inorganic material through the various "kinds" is silly. I know it hasn’t been proved. I read one silly scientist who said that the evolution of humans from inorganics has been proved as clearly as the rotundity of the earth. Bless me, we have pictures of the earth's round nature, we actually fly round it and this silly man says the transmutations of species has been proven as conclusively as the claim "the earth is round." Sometimes religious people overstate their case but as you can see they’re not the only ones.
I know there are scads of books on the market and stuff online that discuss things like this so we won’t be short of material to pursue. Myself? I choose to spend my time in other avenues (though I have no criticism for those who pursue this line of inquiry!). I vehemently oppose the social, moral and ethical fruit that rises from the theory of evolution (the transmutation of species). The theory of evolution has no practical benefit to offer humanity in any of the areas that makes humans anything worth talking about. I think we should do our best to become rich in the central truths of scripture and the gospel and rejoice in and proclaim those. There's something about those truths that make theories of evolution sound hollow and finally boring.
©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.
Many thanks to Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, theabidingword.com.