The Age of the Earth
--
Part I: An Appraisal of Some Current Evangelical Positions
--
Frederic R. Howe
The question of the age of the earth has always intrigued man. With the advent of Darwinian evolution and a macroevolutionary framework of the earth has come the demand for a scientific construct or model in cosmogony that posits millions and millions of years for earth history. On the other hand with the rise of the highly articulate statements of creation science in recent years has come a re-emphasis on a young earth model or framework. For evangelical Christians the issue comes to a focal point when careful scientists who place explicit confidence in the inerrant Word of God differ very pointedly about this question.1 Who is right in such differences of opinion? For what reasons do some evangelical scholars postulate long aeons of time for earth history? And what reasons lead other evangelical scholars to advocate a relatively recent creation and thus a young age for the earth?
The purpose of this series of two articles is to survey and analyze some current evangelical thought on the question of the age of the earth. Many issues are closely interrelated. Crucial questions about interpreting biblical statements that refer to the realm of nature and the whole matter of careful hermeneutical procedure arise. All the positions, whether they reflect an old earth or a young earth model, must deal definitively and carefully with the inerrant Word of God, particularly in such a passage as Genesis 1.
Theology and Science
One might question the right of the present writer, whose training and work is in theology and not science, to discuss this issue. Is this not a question of simply ascertaining the best methods of discovering the age of rocks and other realms of creation? Why not leave the matter entirely with the scientists? The problem is not so simple, however. All believers, of whatever training or background, are obligated to strive for coherence and correlation in the study of all truth. Scripture, the veritable handbook for all believers, has specific statements about the creation of the earth. These statements are vitally and integrally linked to historical data. As Mommsen once said, when speaking about the responsibility of any person to search for truth:
Every one of you gentlemen, every thinking man generally, is always searching for sources and is, in practice, an historian. There is no other way to understand the events that take place before your eyes. Every businessman who handles a complicated transaction, every lawyer who studies a case, is a searcher for sources and a practicing historian.
Writers in biblical studies and systematic theology from the past can be cited as examples of those who, even without formal scientific training, attempted to understand the science of their times and attempted to see correlations with science and Scripture. For example, Noll's helpful book The Princeton Theology 1812-1921 gives firsthand evidence that theologians of the past discussed some of these issues related to the age of the earth. Noll commented as follows:
The stake of the Princeton theologians in science was great. In the first place they regularly conceived of theology as a science . . . and this gave them a great concern to understand the nature, domain, and prospects of scientific inquiry . . . . It was, therefore, a matter of grave concern when the name of science and the reputation of scientists were ranged against their orthodox convictions. To such threats they reacted not only by defending the integrity of orthodoxy, but also by defining the proper domain for the scientific enterprise.
Articles included in Noll's edited work are from such theologians as Charles Hodge (1797-1878) and Benjamin B. Warfield (1851-1921). These scholars gave evidence of believing in the unity of all truth, and the ultimate harmony of Scripture and science. In the latter part of the 19th century, W. G. T. Shedd (1820-1894)developed careful and cogent criticism of evolution in the light of Christian orthodoxy, as can be seen in his Dogmatic Theology.
In more recent years the writings of John W. Klotz, for example, are significant in this realm. Klotz is one of few men who combine scientific and theological training (B.D., Concordia Theological Seminary, Ph.D. in biology, University of Pittsburgh). He reflects the spirit of balance needed in this inquiry:
There must be a basic unity between facts as we determine them by observation and truth as it is given us by revelation . . . . Truth is one whether it is scientific truth or spiritual truth. For that reason the Christian should never oppose scientific research and investigation. He should not oppose the studies of honest scientists in their search for truth. Indeed he must encourage scientific study and research even in areas where there appears to be disagreement with Scripture, for he must be convinced that ultimately Scripture will be vindicated.
On the question of the age of the earth, therefore, Scripture must be studied diligently and pondered creatively and reflectively. True, the Bible does not give an explicit statement about the age of the earth. However, it does give a framework for the study of this question. Furthermore, careful exegesis of all the pertinent biblical data does indeed provide the basis for constructing a model of earth history that appears coherent and consistent with actuality.
Scripture and Science: The Reliability of the Bible
It is commonly said that the Bible is not a textbook of modern science, that the Scriptures were not written to give man details of truth in the realm of science. The next step in this line of thinking, for some, is to say that the Bible furnishes only broad details about the what of creation, and so it should not be expected to furnish details concerning the how of creation, much less details that will allow an assessment of the when of creation. Dillow offers a positive and helpful analysis of this commonly held view:
It is obvious that the Bible is not a scientific textbook in the sense of giving detailed technical descriptions and mathematical formulations of natural phenomena. But this is not an adequate reason for questioning the objective accuracy of the numerous portions of Scripture which do deal with natural phenomena and historical events. The Bible is not a mathematics text either, but we expect that Daniel understands sixty-nine weeks by the phrase, "seven weeksand sixty-two week" (Dan. 9:25). The Bible is not, strictly speaking, a historical textbook either, but we expect that when it alludes to things which can be historically verified, it should be accurate. Likewise, the Bible is not technically a textbook of modern science, but when it refers to things which can be measured and checked by modern science, it should be accurate.
Scripture is the Word of God; thus its propositions are truthful, not errant, in all realms. In determining a hypothesis, therefore, about the age of the earth, Scripture must be the basis for the search of all the data on this question. Dillow summarizes this issue as follows:
. . . for the Bible-believer, science as an investigative technique is used. However, science is rejected as an interpretive tool to reconstruct a world view. So the determining criteria for understanding the major outlines of ancient history are interpretive principles which govern the interpretation of the Bible. What the Bible teaches is what ancient history was really like.
Some of these basic guidelines for interpreting statements of Scripture that have direct bearing on the data of science must be established. Articles XX through XXII of "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics" are central to this discussion. Article XXII affirms that Genesis 1-11 is true and factual. It states:
We affirm that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book. We deny that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.
The creation narrative, Genesis 1-2, of course, is basic and central to the Book of Genesis. In that key narrative, terms related to a time framework, such as "day," "evening," and "morning" are used. These affirmations given in the Genesis creation narrative are to be given the same credence as affirmations in the rest of Genesis, where time, history, and events enable the student to ascertain chronological information. No statements in Genesis allow the interpreter to dismiss the creation narrative from the realm of history by appealing to some "mythological" structure for these dynamic words in Scripture. Kaiser demonstrates the usability of Genesis 1 to get specific historical information and even chronological information on creation: "It is often wrongly stated that Genesis 1 tells us who created the universe but not how it was done -- an obvious slighting of the phrase repeated ten times, 'and God said'. . . . "
A diligent study of Genesis 1-2 must certainly be a vital part of constructing a viable model of earth history. The question of the age of the earth moves into the realm of history and chronology. The Book of Genesis records the Creator's account of the origin of earth history.
This creation account is vitally linked to other historical data in the rest of the Book of Genesis. If chronology involving approximate dates in history is constructed from the data in other portions of Genesis, logic and consistency demand that the creation narrative itself be allowed to stand as giving propositions that have significance in determining the broad chronology of earth history. Kaiser again demonstrates this integral unity of all portions of the Book of Genesis as follows:
As an example, let us compare the organization of Genesis 1-11 with that of Genesis 12-50. The writer used the rubric "These are the generations (i.e., histories) of . . . " (KJV) ten times throughout the book, six times in the first eleven chapters and four times in the remainder of the book. Since the historical nature of the patriarchal narratives of Genesis 12-50 is usually conceded to be "substantially accurate" even by many non-evangelical scholars, we believe it is fair to argue that the writer wanted to indicate that the prepatriarchal material is of similar nature.
Setting the stage for the inquiry about the age of the earth within the framework of modern scientific theory, creationist and evangelical scientist Paul Zimmerman stated the fact that, from the hypothesis of evolution, which is assumed to be a very slow process, there is a demand for an old earth. Yet by contrast the believer in special creation can function with either an old earth or a young earth, as far as theoretical speculation is concerned. Zimmerman noted:
Thus the evolutionist needs a very old earth. His theory is utterly without hope if the earth is young. . . . On the other hand the creationist can operate with a young earth or a very ancient one. . . . The creationist does not need millions of years to make his theory workable. For the believer in creation the question is a different one: (1) What does the Bible say about the date of creation? (2) Is this information at variance with the facts brought to light by scientific research? These questions the creationist seeks to answer. . . . Actually neither the scientist nor the creationist can fix the date of the beginning. The Bible permits certain general conclusions, but it does not give the age of the earth. The scientist in turn can make certain interesting calculations, but his computations are often interlarded with slippery assumptions, and the results are beclouded by serious questions that rise in the research.
Scripture and Science: The Interpretation of the Bible
The biblical doctrine of creation must be studied from the total framework of scriptural statements about natural phenomena. Since the position of the unity of all truth must be maintained, an example or two showing the truthfulness of Scripture in the face of divergent speculation in the past as to the ordering of reality can suggest what is being presented here. Specifically the issue is this: Should the question of the age of the earth be viewed in the same way as the question of interpreting biblical statements about astronomy and earth science?
Some have charged the Bible with inaccuracy when it refers to the four corners of the earth or to the firmament. Their reasoning is as follows: True modern science has revealed that there is not a dome-like structure, called the firmament, above the earth, and true science has demonstrated that the earth does not have corners. Therefore Christians have changed their interpretation of the statements in these passages because of the demands of truth discovered in modern science. Some, of course, have gone on to insist that modern science shows the biblical statements to be in error. Others, holding to inerrancy, have simply stated that the interpretation of these passages, or the translation of pertinent terms, must be done more accurately to reveal that the true meaning of the text is not out of harmony with reality as it stands.
Perhaps in the minds of some evangelicals the question of the age of the earth is identical to this realm. They reason that since the Bible seems to imply a young earth and that science on the other hand has discovered that the earth is four billion years old, then the interpretation of the biblical data that has inferred a younger earth model must be adjusted to meet the truth as discovered in science. This suggested "adjustment" must deal with chronological or chronomistic terms, such as "day," "evening," and "morning," as well as with the fact that the creation account is vitally linked to all the other historical accounts in the structural framework of Genesis. Specifically then the viewpoint of some evangelicals is that the true meaning of the text is not at variance with the truth discovered in science about the age of the earth, and the interpretation of chronological terms and data must be adjusted to reflect this truth.
However, to equate biblical terms such as "corners of the earth" with chronological and chronomistic terms such as "day" is not completely accurate, in the opinion of this writer. One crucial difference prevails. In the Creator's narrative of the actual account of origins in Genesis 1, it is patently clear that there were no human observers present. Thus this account is not, strictly speaking, given in "observer" or "appearance" language. This is the directly revealed word of the Creator. Now certainly the Creator revealed the truth to man so that man can understand, and even though no human observer was present, it can be assumed that the terms of the creation account are clear and understandable.
Exegesis, based on a strict translation of Genesis 1:6, demonstrates, for instance, that the word "firmament" is an inaccurate translation of the Hebrew word u^yq]r* . The corrective did not come from science. It is crucial to see this differentiation. The corrective to be made was not with the meaning of a scriptural term, but with the interpretation of this term that was drawn from a less-than accurate scientific view from the past! This problem and its solution were highlighted by Maunder as follows:
To the Hebrews the "firmament" was the apparent void above, in which clouds float and the lights of heaven pursue their appointed paths. The word r*K'^, by its etymology, suggests an expanse, something stretched, spread or beaten out, as when Isaiah (40:22) says that the Lord "stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." But the Greek word stereoma, by which the LXX rendered r*K'^, gives the meaning of a firm and solid structure, and our translators have carried out this same idea in their Eng. rendering of "firmament."
(2) The Alexandrian conception. -- In this however the LXX simply expressed the astronomical science of their day as accepted in Alexandria, where the doctrine of a succession of solid crystalline spheres, each carrying a planet. held currency. But in order to express the Hebrew idea, r*K'^ should be rendered "expanse" or "space"; it corresponds to the "empty space" of Job 26:7.
It remains to be seen, of course, if such terms as "day" or even
"time" (as 
is translated in Gen. 2:4b), or "evening" and
"morning" are now to be seen as in need of the same kind of
clarification as the term "firmament." However, students today can
draw a lesson from the past wherein the scientific theory, prevalent at one
time in the past, was used to set the supposed meaning of a biblical
term. Appreciation for the work of science is not in the least devalued when
this caution is urged: One should not attempt to ascertain the true meaning
of biblical terms in the light of any
current scientific constructs. Assuredly the implications of biblical terms must be studied, their full significance explored, and where necessary faulty interpretations brought into harmony with true meaning. The true meaning must be ascertained by the full use of the exegetical method alone, and then of course illumined or even clarified by any established or settled truth from the realm of science. The following is an example of this latter type of iuumination or clarification.
Contrary to the false view that the earth is the center of reality, for centuries scientists have affirmed by verifiable scientific data that the sun is the center of the solar system and that the spherical earth is a planetary body. Many thought that the meaning of the Bible was shown to be wrong when the Scriptures referred to the pillars of the earth (Job 9:6; 26:11). This was thought to be a perfect example of the Bible partaking of the faulty world view of archaic times. Furthermore references to "the four corners of the earth" (Isa. 11:12) or "ends of the earth" (Job 37:3) were understood to mean that the earth is flat, that it is supported by pillars, and that therefore the Bible clearly presents real error at the "meaning" level.
Careful study, however, shows that Scripture is not in error on this issue. Jean Morton, a scientist (Ph.D. in biology) and an evangelical Christian, has summarized this corrective. She noted:
Perhaps no phrase in Scripture has been so controversial as the phrase, "the four corners of the earth." The word translated "corners, " as in the phrase above, is the Hebrew word, kanaph. Kanaph is translated in a variety of ways. However, it generally means extremity. . . Some have tried to ridicule the Bible to say that it teaches the earth is square. The Scripture makes it quite clear that the earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). . . . Regardless of the various ways kanaph is translated. it makes reference to extremities.
There are many ways in which God the Holy Spirit could have said corner. Any of the following Hebrew words could have been used: Pinoh is used in reference to the cornerstone. Paioh means "a geometric corner"; ziouyoh means "right angle," or "corner"; and krnouth refers to a projecting corner. If the Lord wanted to convey the idea of a square, four-cornered earth, the Hebrew word paamouth could have been used. Paamouth means square. Instead, the Holy Spirit selected the word kanaph, conveying the idea of extremity.
Vital to this discussion is the fact that the corrective offered in, for example, the NIV translation of Isaiah 11:12 ("He will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth") is derived from a careful handling of the biblical terms involved. This careful work shows that there is no error in the Bible, and thatthe biblical truth is in harmony with the truth seen in the physical universe from the realm of science. Thus the implications drawn from Scripture, as well as the meaning of Scripture, correlate with reality. The evangelical Christian is grateful for the clarifications offered by accurate interpretations drawn from the realm of science. For example, the statement in Job 26:7 has implications that have stood true since the very day it was written. The text, as translated by the NIV, states: "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing." As truth is discovered through scientific observation in the realm of God's creation, the implications of biblical statements can be seen. The important thing here is to note that scriptural truth conforms to reality. Maunder noted this in commenting on astronomy in the Bible:
But the spherical form of the heavens almost involves a similar form for the earth, and their apparent diurnal rotation certainly means that they are not rigidly connected with the earth, but surround it on all sides at some distance from it. The earth therefore must be freely suspended in space, and so the Book of Job describes it: "He stretcheth out the north over empty space, and hangeth the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7).
Reflecting on this truth expressed in Job 26:7, Morton finds possible implications here that relate to the whole matter of gravity in science. She stated: "Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) published the laws of gravitation and provided an explanation for the fact that the earth is suspended in space, held by its attraction to the sun. The Bible clearly states that the earth hangs on nothing."
In determining the biblical implications concerning the question of the age of the earth, it is imperative to attempt as close a correlation as possible between two things: (a) interpreting the meaning of the biblical text where it does give specific chronological and chronometric data, and (b) reasoning from this point to the full significance of the data as seen in the light of science.
A Survey of Two Creation Models
The two models evangelicals hold with regard to the age of the earth are not the only theories advanced by evangelicals, and the proponents of each model differ on some of the details. This section reviews the general consensus held by those defending an old earth position. The next article in this series reviews the consensus of those defending a young-earth position.
An Old-Earth Model
The approach to Scripture. The persons quoted in the remainder of this article have affirmed explicit belief in the inerrant Word of God. Names of Christian scholars will be openly and yet carefully used, for their positions are clearly stated in their writings, and are representative of the issues at hand. Christian geologist Davis A. Young, associate professor of geology at Calvin College, epitomizes the advocates of the old-earth model. His two books Creation and the Flood (1977) and Christianity and the Age of the Earth (1982) are thorough treatments of this question. The issue for Young concerning the Bible and inspiration is clear.
In this book Scripture's view of itself is adopted. I regard Scripture as directly identical to God's Word and therefore absolutely authoritative, infallible, and inerrant. . . . In terms of the view adopted here, if one finds an apparent contradiction between Scripture and some group of facts from any realm of human thought, there are three possibilities: (1) the exact human interpretation of Scripture on that point is incorrect or not clear; (2) the interpretation of the group of facts is incorrect; or (3) the"facts" are not really facts. But the words of Scripture are never incorrect. The words and real teachings of Scripture are never in ultimate conflict with the real facts of science or history.
Similar belief in the inerrant Word of God is expressed by evangelical scientists Robert C. Newman and Herman J. Eckelmann, Jr. in their book Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth.16 Mention should also be made of the careful work of evangelical scientist and Bible scholar Daniel E. Wonderly and his book God's Time-Records in Ancient Sediments.
The evidence for an old earth. Avenues for determining the age of the solar system and the age of the earth are thoroughly presented in these works by Newman, Wonderly, and Young. The aggregate impact of the entire field of scientific work on this question convinces these evangelical scientists that an old earth is a scientifically verifiable fact.
Radiometric data is one avenue for establishing the age of the earth. The key to this time clock is the fact that radioactive elements were found to disintegrate into other elements at rates that could be measured, and converted to a "time scale." Thus ratios of chemicals in a rock specimen can be "read," and converted into a time or age reading. This method has been greatly improved and, according to advocates of the old-earth model, is a mainstay in accurate appraisal of earth history. These statements from Young summarize the information:
A number of dating methods utilizing radioactive decay have been abandoned because they have been found too difficult or fraught with too many uncertainties, but at the same time several very reliable, well understood dating methods have been developed and are now routinely used in a number of laboratories around the world. Consequently, thousands of radiometric dates of rocks and minerals are obtained each year by several radiometric methods, and these dates are routinely millions or even a few billion years. . . . The vast antiquity of the Earth has continued to receive the support of many evangelical theologians and Christian scientists in the twentieth century. . . Many truly evangelical scholars have still shown much support for the antiquity of the Earth and the integrity of the Bible as God's revelation, and have been eager to relate the discoveries of science to Genesis 1.
The evidence for an old earth is not limited to radiometric data. For ease of reference and study, the scope of some of the evidence is presented here in outline form, enabling the reader to review the information and refer to the sources for further study and evaluation.
I. Astronomical evidence
II. Selected radiometric evidence
III. Selected nonradiometric evidence (Here no dates are listed for each
item, but the evidence all points to the age of theearth as vastly greater
than 6,000 to 10,000 years.)
In summary these converging lines of evidence provide a crescendo of truth-claims that cannot be dismissed, according to some evangelical scholars.
The interpretation of biblical truth in the old-earth model. It is vital to recognize that scholars holding to an old-earth model stress the necessity for interpreting the biblical data in the light of the scientific data. Striving for a balance between theistic evolution and the young earth or "recent creationist" position, advocates of the old-earth position generally are reviving the so called "progressive creationist" view. This position states that God sovereignly created new forms of life, supernaturally and without any evolutionary mechanism. These creative acts of God were done "progressively" throughout the geologic ages. Progressive creationism is not the same as theistic evolution. Some years ago Mixter, an evangelical Christian and scientist, stated this difference pointedly:
I do not believe in theistic evolution. Theistic evolution means simply that God guided the evolutionary process so that it is not to be explained on a purely naturalistic basis. It assumes that all living things, including man, are biologically descended from a common ancestor. By contrast with theistic evolution, Scripture indicates that God made different basic kinds of beings and that all existing plants and animals are not descended from a common ancestor.
Varied responses to the chronometric data of Genesis 1 by old earth advocates
are grounded on the principle that the truth of an old earth is established by
all the convergent lines of information available to modern man. Therefore
biblical statements must be interpreted in the light of this knowledge to show
that the meaning of the biblical text conforms to scientific reality. A
representative statement of the interpretation of the word "day" ( ) is given by Newman
and Eckelmann:
An elaborate word study of the Hebrew yom ("day") is not necessary to show that it is used rather like our English word "day." Often it means a period of activity during which the sun is up, roughly twelve hours long, depending on the season (Gen. 1:5; 1:4a). At other times it represents a day-night pair, a twenty-four-hour day (Gen. 1:14b; Num. 3:13). Less frequently it is used for longer periods of time (Gen. 2:4; Eccl. 12:3). Which of these usages should be called "literal" and which "figurative" is somewhat a matter of semantics. In any case, the claim that yom always means a twenty-four-hour day cannot be substantiated by a survey of its actual use. . . . The more modest claim, that yom means a twenty-four-hour day when used with ordinal numbers (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.), has the advantage that no clear counter-example can be cited with yom meaning a long period of time. The force of this observation is greatly reduced, however, when one considers that the Bible has no occasion to mention several long periods of time which might be numbered, except the days of creation. In any case, it is not clear why an adjective such as an ordinal number should change the range of meaning of the noun yom.
Nuances in postulating an old-earth position in the work of Young and Newman are reflective of the more recent approach to the biblical information. For example, Young developed an elaborate schematization of the correlation of the days of Genesis 1 with broad geologic time by suggesting that the creative activity cited for each day is selective, representative of a major activity of that particular day, a "peak" activity, so to speak. This is a distinct advance beyond the usual "day-age" format. Young states:
For example, day five records the creation of birds. It is clear that the creation of birds was a major event of that day, and that the day was pre-eminently one of bird formation as illustrated by the peak on the "bird curve." The curve as drawn, however. suggests that some lesser bird creation could have occurred, say, on days four and six as well.22
Newman feels that while the traditional day-age view can still be optional, it would be better to see "that each day opens a new creative period . . . and therefore each day is mentioned in Genesis 1 after the activities of the previous creative period have been described, but before those of the next period are given."23
Finally, the hermeneutical basis for this proposed harmonization of Scripture and science is stated concisely here:
Accordingly, modifications of the traditional understanding are suggested which allow a synthesis of the scientific and biblical data unto a "unified field" theory of the origin of the earth.
This proposal is based on the assumption that the data of Scripture and the data of science are both true, but that the simplest possible interpretation of either set of data taken alone will not necessarily give the complete picture, nor even a correct picture. Thus the question of origins according to the scientific and scriptural data is analogous to the problem of the chronology of the kings of Israel and Judah according to the archaeological and biblical data, which was solved very nicely by Thiele on the assumption that both sets of data were valid if properly interpreted.
This model provides a correlation between science and Scripture in place of the contradiction commonly imagined.
A New-Earth Model
In the second article in this two-part series the young-earth model will be presented and the two positions compared and appraised.