And now for something different.
A lot of Christians struggle to reconcile what the Bible says with the available scientific evidence. Case in point: according to your beliefs, how old is the earth?
Science says that the earth is more than four and a half billion years old. That doesn’t square with a strict reading of the Bible, though. The Bible says that not only the earth, but the entire universe…everything that is…was created in seven literal 24-hour days, probably between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago.
This presents a problem for many Christ-followers. I’ve heard some water down what the Bible says in order to make it fit the science. “I don’t think it was one literal week, I think it was figuratively referring to the process that actually took billions of years.” Or maybe “I believe God intentionally inspired the author of Genesis to use vague language, so that it’s not clear.”
Consider another alternative. The scientific evidence we observe is accurate and makes sense, and God created the whole universe in seven literal days less than 10,000 years ago.
How could this be? I offer this theory: instead of creating the earth as if it were brand new, God created it as though it were already in-progress.
What does that mean? It means when the earth was only a month old, it already had the appearance of being much older. Instead of creating a molten Earth with flat terrain, taking millions of years for plate tectonics to build mountains and for glaciers to carve valleys, there were already crumbling mountains and an amazing Grand Canyon by the time Adam and Eve showed up.
Half-lives of Carbon and other elements used for dating old materials would present a compelling case for an earth that’s much older than 10,000 years. The part that’s not going to jump out at us is the part where those elements were created in a partially decayed state. Science can present us with verifiable facts, but in order for us to get the full story there are still considerations apart from science.
“Mmmmm, yeah, I’m still not buying it,” says the science-leaning Christian. Okay. How about this spin on the “chicken or egg” problem? Adam took his first breath as a full-grown man. He was never “born” in the traditional sense. Since he never had a need for an umbilical cord, do you think Adam had a belly button?
It’s an odd question, perhaps. Of course, we have no way of knowing from our reading of Genesis, but since Adam was made in God’s image, would he be functionally different from what we are today? I can’t say it with certainty, but I say no. The main recorded physiological difference between Adam and modern man is that he may have been born with more ribs than we were. (Genesis 2:21-23 gives a little more information on this subject.)
From what we know about the way Adam was brought to life, if he had a belly button, it was more for decorative use than functional. Obviously he didn’t need it, but if it was there, it was likely because everyone else after that point would have one, and since he was the first man he should look like everyone else. Is this an odd discussion? Absolutely! It meshes with the theory listed above though: God created everything as though we picked up in the middle of a movie. If that’s true, is it such a stretch to claim that yes, science would suggest the earth is over four and a half billion years old, but that there’s also a perfectly good reason to think it’s much younger?
Not only is God good, He’s the God of logic. Why would the Creator of science leave a trail of evidence that leads His followers away from what He claims in the Bible?
Food for thought!