In order to make an effective argument for or against a given position regarding the origin of life on Earth we must start by recognizing that each of us has our own starting assumptions. Whether we accept the biblical account of creation or the evolutionists view stems from what we believe to be true. This is the place where we begin to form our view of history and these assumptions are where we find the roots of our different conclusions about the beginnings of Earth and man.
This paper will provide an overview of five questions related to the origin of the Earth as presented in articles by Dr. John Morris from the website of the Institute for Creation Research in a section called Dr. John’s Q&A. As a follow up to these questions a section called “Evidence Young Earth/Old Earth” will address key points related to determining the age of the Earth and my personal opinion.
The purpose of this paper to draw attention to the importance of using verifiable methods for proving statements regarding the history of how our planet came to exist.
Dr. John’s Q&A
In a series of articles on several topics on origin, Dr. John Morris presents several questions and answers. I have selected five articles that address the topics of evolution, day and month duration, and a simple question of the Earth’s shape. In this section I will provide an overview of the questions and answers related to each topic.
The first question is “Is Earth Really Round?” This question set the stage for my thinking regarding this topic as well as the subsequent topics. Dr. John’s answer is a simple one, “Without a doubt, Earth is round, or nearly so,” he says. Morris provides some key points of evidence supporting his position. One, erosion of rain, glaciers, and wind along with gravity moving material around has caused the Earth to be spherical. Morris points out that this is still observed today. He also brings to our attention that the Bible teaches of a round Earth referring to Isaiah 40:22, “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth.”
Morris goes on to assert in this article that while the shape of Earth might seem trivial, the knowledge, understanding, and agreement of this fact have importance in our debate over evolution. Because we can see the continued effects of the shaping of our Earth, creationists are in a position to agree with evolutionists. Morris says, “This is simply an observational fact.” What is not “observational fact” are the claims of evolution.
In the second question “Has Evolution become a State Religion?” Morris poses the idea that because our government embraces the concept of evolutionary naturalism it risks establishing state religion. Morris supports this idea by defining evolutionary naturalism as a religious concept that cannot be validated through observation or proof. Because it lacks scientific evidence it must be held by faith and is therefore a religious position.
Morris points out that our federally funded schools often use textbooks with information known to be false, teacher unions combat alternative views to evolution and defend teachers who mistreat students with views other than evolution. They do this while disallowing other origin views suggesting that they are religious. Morris asks the following questions, “How could we have come so far? Where is the road back?”
Morris summarizes his response by saying that this is more than a matter of a state-supported church; this is an issue where the free exercise of Christianity is being prohibited. If this is in fact the case then it would be a violation of what the founding fathers of the United States intended and clearly that of our federal constitution.
In consideration to the previous question of evolution as a state religion the question of “Just How Well Proven Is Evolution?” is an appropriate one. When faced with a statement that evolution is just as “proven” as 2+2=4 from noted evolutionist Dr. Michael Ruse, Dr. Morris tackles this question by submitting a simple experiment to demonstrate the verifiability of this statement as fact. This experiment focuses on the things we can observe and repeat. Morris asks the reader to hold up two fingers on each hand and lay them in front of you to be counted. When we do this we get four each and every time. Dr. Morris says, “It’s an observational fact.”
Morris continues to challenge the reader to find an experiment to verify evolution. In this thinking we find that evolution is not something that we observe and therefore we cannot prove. As he compares evolution with the simple mathematical equation, Morris makes his point this way, “Evolution, at the most, is an idea about history, not observational science.”
When we consider the origin of this Earth and the creatures that inhabit it, the argument of evolution verses creation, we find ourselves at the question of time. How long did all this take? What evidence do we have to determine this timing? These questions lead us to our fourth and fifth questions from Dr. John Morris. “In the Early Earth, Were All the Months Exactly Thirty Days Long?” And “When Is a Day Not a Day?”
If we look at the question of “When Is a Day Not a Day?” first we can establish the foundation for the first of our final two questions regarding days in a month. From a Christian perspective we often look to the biblical story of creation. The Bible says that God’s work of creating the Earth, everything in it and around it in six days. In his response to the question, “When Is a Day Not a Day” Morris points to this biblical account and highlights that each day of activity is “bracketed” by terms we know to define a day, “evening and morning.” We understand these to be a literal day.
Morris goes on to say that like our English word for “day” the Hebrew word also had several meanings. However, in both languages “day” is mostly meant a solar day, which is defined as one revolution of the Earth on its axis. Considering the biblical account, Morris draws our attention to the definition of the Hebrew word, yom (our English word day), where the passage says that “God divided the light from the darkness (Genesis 1:4).” Morris finds additional support for this definition in Genesis 1:5, “God called the light “day” and the darkness He called “night.” When we look more closely at this verse in context the passage concludes with “And there was evening, and there was morning – the first day.”
Morris wraps up his position on the definition of a “day” by stating that while it can mean a period of time given its context, the day referred to in the creation account means a day. He further states that “Christians need to allow the unchangeable Scripture to define its own terms and not rely on the temporal musing of men.”
Returning to address the question of “In the Early Earth, Were All the Months Exactly Thirty Days Long” Morris quickly identifies the length of a month as a being roughly tied to a 29.5 day cycle of the moon. Morris calls attention to Scripture regarding the length of a month before the “Flood.” In the passage of Genesis 7:11 it says the flooding began, “on the seventeenth day of the second month” and in Genesis 7:24 we are told that “The waters flooded the Earth for a hundred and fifty days.” Morris continues by saying that Genesis 8:4 “and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month” provides us with the numbers needed to calculate the average length of a month. In this five month period from the second month to the seventh month, we find an average of thirty days.
Morris concludes by addressing the issue of a change in Earth’s orbit. He says that the Bible’s recorded event of the great flood would have had enough force to affect the orbit of earth, and this would have changed the structure of the planet, as well as the length of the day and year. But he also points out that although we don’t have the details we do know that the flood event was capable of these changes.
After reviewing the questions and answers provided by Dr. Morris we find that we have a good basis from which we can formulate an assumption about the age of the Earth. It is clear from Scripture that definition of a day as it is used in the creation account is one literal day. We also note that Scripture also provides us with the data necessary to know that the way we measure our months today as compared to the past is fundamentally the same. Given these assertions we find no room for an old Earth theory and therefore that of evolution.
Evidence Young Earth/Old Earth
As we consider the various arguments on both sides of the young Earth, old Earth debate we come to one fundamental question. What proof do we have for a given position? Those on the old Earth side suggest that based on radiometric dating methods (carbon-14) the Earth is millions or billions of years old. On the young Earth side of the argument we find that genealogical accounts of Genesis, while questions of gaps or fluidity arise, provide evidence that the Earth is thousands of years old at the most. As is often the case the basis from which we form our opinion, the assumptions, is most likely where we find the real answers.
Some scientists have presented data from radiometric dating that suggests the Earth to be billions of years old. This “dating” method, know as carbon-14 or radiocarbon dating, shows that the level of decay of an organic material, like a fossil, to occur at a seemingly measureable rate. When we look deeper into the assumptions presented by this dating method we see that there are issues that arise. First, carbon-14 dating is only valid to thousands of years, not millions. Second, we need certain data like, the starting amount, the current amount, and the half-life of carbon-14 to calculate the rate of decay of the carbon-14 in a specimen. Dr. Willard Libby (founder of carbon-14 dating method) noted a discrepancy in the equilibrium of the atmosphere. Equilibrium, the amount of production verses removal of carbon-14 from the atmosphere, is needed to establish the starting amount carbon-14. Libby’s calculations showed that it would take 30,000 years to build up a steady state (equilibrium). Because of the observable changes in our atmosphere and since the Earth has not achieved equilibrium we cannot be certain that the starting amount of carbon-14 is accurate when calculating the rate of decay and subsequently the age of a specimen. “Because all radiometric dating methods are based on assumptions about events in the past the result can be “biased” toward a desired outcome or age (Ham, 87).”
Looking at the young Earth side of the equation we find that from an observable historical accounting as presented in Genesis the Earth is only approximately 6,000 years old. While some scholars suggest that the chronological calculations are questionable there is not enough evidence to support the idea that these accounts are millions of years off. From a scientific perspective we are presented with the idea that the earth’s magnetic field is rapidly getting weaker. According to Dr. Thomas Barnes, a creation physicist, the observed rate of decay occurs at a constant percentage each year. This rapid or “free decay” could not have continued for more than 10,000 years (Humphreys).The importance of this finding is two-fold. Because the earth’s magnetic field is decaying the atmosphere will allow for more carbon-14 production today as compared to the past. This affects the results of dating by likely increasing the age of a specimen. Also, due to the rapid decay of the earth’s magnetic field we are provided an approximate age consistent with the biblical creation account.
Conclusion
If dating methods and biblical chronological methods are questionable, what then should we believe? From a Christian perspective we must believe and hold to the fact that God’s word is infallible. As Dr. Morris said, we should never attempt to redefine it to fit the views of men’s fallible ideas.
Because there are no observable conditions that allow us to definitively conclude the age of the Earth, the documented eyewitness and historical accounts found in the Bible are the only data trustworthy enough to count on. Although I have personally not completed my research on young Earth, old Earth, I have laid a foundation of information from which I can build. Understanding the findings from both sides of this argument are only the beginning. I know that in order to truly arrive at a position where productive dialog can happen I must understand the assumptions made in support of each position.
Works Cited
Ham, Ken, General Editor. The New Answers Book. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2007
Mortenson, Terry, Ph.D. and Ham, Ken, Science or the Bible? Answers Magazine, Hebron, KY: Answers in Genesis, Vol. 2 No. 3, July-Sept. 2007
Humphreys, D. Russell, Ph.D., The Mystery of Earth's Magnetic Field, Institute for Creation Research. 1989 http://www.icr.org/article/292/
Arnold, Bill T., and Bryan E. Beyer. Encountering the Old Testament: a Christian Survey. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999.
Freeman, Dr. Rick, Do the Genesis Genealogies Contain Gaps? Answers in Genesis (website article), June 20, 2007 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/06/20/do-the-genesis-genealogies-contain-gaps
Morris, Dr. John. Is Earth Really Round? Dr. John’s Q&A. Institute for Creation Research. May 1, 2006. http://www.icr.org/article/2703
Morris, Dr. John. When Is a Day Not a Day? Dr. John’s Q&A. Institute for Creation Research. May 1, 2006. http://www.icr.org/article/2721
Morris, Dr. John. In the Early Earth, Were All the Months Exactly Thirty Days Long? Dr. John’s Q&A. Institute for Creation Research. December 1, 2005. http://www.icr.org/article/2591
Morris, Dr. John. Just How Well Proven Is Evolution? Dr. John’s Q&A. Institute for Creation Research. February 1, 2006. http://www.icr.org/article/2605
Morris, Dr. John. Has Evolution become a State Religion? Dr. John’s Q&A. Institute for Creation Research. November 1, 2005. http://www.icr.org/article/2497
No comments:
Post a Comment