Our planet gets spun in wildly different directions concerning its age. Trusting what they believe is science, many think it is 4.5 billion years old. Based on biblical chronology, others hold earth to be six to ten thousand years old. Nobody knows how old earth is.
Moses recorded, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1, ESV). Likewise, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day” (Exod. 20:11a).
Earth is as old as “the beginning,” an event witnessed by no human, living or dead. Such a singularity is outside the scope of the scientific method: that first moment when matter began to matter. In addition to no witnesses, that moment has never been repeated, is beyond anyone’s ability to replicate, and cannot be researched in a lab—at least not to the extent that an accurate age can be proven.
Science is simply a discipline of learning, one among many. Theology is another. There are good scientists and bad, and it’s not the fault of science. There are good theologians and bad, with theology not to blame. Assertions are not proven by claiming science “says” this or that. That’s not how science works. For example, philosophy doesn’t speak; philosophers do. Medicine doesn’t prescribe pills; doctors do. Just so, scientists say things, not science. And every scientist brings his worldview to the table. Every scientist has his presuppositions (which may be justified or not). Every scientist makes claims in keeping with what he believes about the nature of reality. One scientist, based on his atheistic presupposition, doesn’t see intelligent design anywhere in nature, and nothing you put under his microscope or above his telescope changes his mind. Another scientist—a theist—sees intelligent design everywhere he looks. They cannot both be right. But, one of them is right.
History is replete with things that scientists used to say, but say no more. Turns out certain things said to be true were never true at all, even though a lot of folk were totally convinced (i.e., deceived). When a scientist misinterprets evidence and makes a claim that is later disproved, it doesn’t mean science was wrong; it means a scientist was wrong. Whether science, itself, is even worthwhile is not a scientific question. It’s a philosophic question. Like all human endeavors, science has its limitations. That said, no one should be anti-science. Everyone should be against scientists making bad claims.
When it comes to earth’s beginning, scientists can only study the effects, not the event. Even the birth of a star in a distant galaxy cannot compare to the arrival of heaven and earth in the Bible’s first verse. The timeless Eternal begets the physical by an event that begins time. From nothing the Maker makes something. The I Am, who always is, brings about what was not, but now is. Thus the planet we call home came on the scene as the initial sole occupier of the universe.
Who can say how that went, or how human eyes would perceive it had they been there? How old does a just-created earth look? We have no frame of reference to answer that question. We cannot compare a brand new earth to another earth that’s been around billions of years and measure differences. Ours is the only earth we know.
Apparent age and actual age are not always identical. Adam looked decades old, even when God had just made him twenty minutes ago. And, when Jesus had the appearance of a newborn in Bethlehem, he had actually existed from eternity. He would later teach us, “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment” (John 7:24). We need “right judgment” in assessing what scientists say, especially any claim at odds with Scripture.
When God—outside of time—brings nothingness into material being, how old does the material look? And, can anyone put a clock on that event where time, itself, comes to be? What if that singular event cannot even be quantified in ways we now measure time? Did the new earth look like an old earth? What even is an old earth, if we weren’t there at the beginning, and cannot, from where we are, foresee the end? If Adam were asked the age of the trees in the Garden of Eden, what could he say? They preceded him by only three days. Did he know that? What do three-day-old trees look like? Judging by appearance (including fruit), they looked much older than three days. If one were cut down, would it have rings that men would later use to age trees in terms of years? It’s possible the newly created earth had an appearance that twenty-first-century scientists would claim looks like billions of years. It’s also possible dating methods preferred by scientists today are not remotely accurate to deal with deep time. And, it’s possible the earth is only six millennia old and looks just like it to anyone who knows exactly what a six-thousand-year-old earth looks like.
Remember, earth is older than the sun, older than the moon, older than all the stars in the galaxies which were not made until Day Four of creation week (Gen. 1:14-19). That’s not a scientific claim. It’s a Scripture claim that no scientist can falsify. While nobody can measure the initial event of creation that began without time, outside of time, and ended within time, we do have clear time markers in Genesis 1 that cannot be brushed aside. Six days, all with evenings and mornings, which give the lie to every evolutionary theory (Rom. 3:4). Genesis will still be standing when earth’s time—no matter how many years—is gone (1 Pet. 1:25; 2 Pet. 3:11). Whenever a geologist collides with Genesis, always stand with Genesis.
Beautiful turns of phrase. I've come to the same conclusions after a long time chasing curiosity. But I can't phrase it with such a poetic flair.
Is that Weylan riding the beast? I knew he was old, but not that ancient. :)