Excellent article! I took the survey. It appears clear to me based on the weight of the evidence that the universe is old. I’ll admit that, having been raised to be a young earth adherent, I’ve had trouble in the faith department after having taken numerous science classes in college. The thread of redemption, as I was taught, would be upset by anything other than creationism of the young earth variety and, ergo, it had to be true or we should just eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. My thinking has nevertheless, umm, evolved.

Let me begin by saying I did poorly in Science and have no interest in it whatsoever. Being scientifically illiterate, I reserve the right to ask very pedantic…ok…dumb questions.

I did, however, have an uncle who was a bonafide rocket scientist who also believed in OEC. He was the only person in my childhood who ever even mentioned it. He was also a believer. I wish he had not died before I was mature enough to be interested in this topic. However, he knew I loved literature and gave me a leather bound copies of Tolstoy’s works that I cherish.

Question:

Who wrote the book of Job? And aren’t dinasours mentioned in it? Some say that dinasours could not have lived at the same time with man.

BTW: Nice to be introduced to your husband this way. I am tempted to ask what he thinks of Obamacare but I digress…..:o)

@Lydia: The beasts mentioned in the book of Job are Behemoth (a land monster) and Leviathan (a sea serpent). Their descriptions do not, as AIG says, really match up with what we know about dinosaurs and associated critters (ichthysaur, leopleurodon, etc.). Behemoth is described rather like a giant bull or a hippopotamus, while Leviathan is a sea serpent which breathes fire. They are apparently composite creatures, and seem to symbolically represent the power of God’s creation, which He so easily masters, as opposed to literal individual creatures.

Thanks, Dr. Jon, and Dee and Deb, for this interesting and thought-provoking article. Much to consider and ponder.

I was a strong student academically (back in the day) and had a good, analytical mind for science. But I was always uncomfortable, even before becoming a Christian, with the philosophical naturalism and assumptions of uniformity that underlie atheistic evolution. And very little of what I’ve seen presented in science textbooks used in public schools does not conform to those atheistic presuppositions. The authors of those textbooks may claim to be unbiased and “agnostic” to the issue of a Creator, but their wording most commonly used leaves little or no room for the concept of a divine hand or purpose behind or involved in naturalistic processes.

So, after becoming a Christian, the appeal to me of the YE position was in its attempt to reconcile science and reason with a strong commitment to the authority and reliability of God’s Word and important theological concepts such as the historicity of Adam and Eve, and the relationship between sin and death. I suspect that is the appeal it has for most conservative, evangelical Christians, especially those, like myself and Lydia, are not well versed in the finer details of scientific data and can only go by claims of those who purport to be well-studied experts. If someone who holds to the same basic view of God’s Word as infallible or inerrant as I do and also claims to know something about science that I don’t, I’m probably more predisposed to think that person would be right than I would be to accept the word of someone who either does not believe in God, or who has a different view of the Bible than I do. Thus there was a time when I was an adamant YEer, fully persuaded that it was the most plausible interpretation of both the Bible and the scientific data.

However, as I have matured and encountered more Christians of different theological stripes over the years, I have come to see that there are those who are still fully committed to a high view of Scripture who, on the basis of their scientific knowledge and research, do not find the science behind the YE views to be tenable. I am also a person who recognizes that devoted followers of Jesus can and do have a variety of interpretations of the Bible on many issues, and those differences of interpretation in no way indicate the depth of their love for God or how committed they are to the truth and reliability of His Word. Because of these things, I can no longer say that I am fully persuaded by the YE position, even though I find some aspects of it appealing and in keeping with my (limited) understanding of the Bible. I feel I know more about what the Bible says and means about creation and human origins than I know about what science has to say, but I know that belief in biblical inerrancy and the YE position are by no means connected (no matter how much some YEers may insist that they are.)

Thus I am currently apt to say that the OE position may well be correct, but I can’t say I’m fully persuaded either way, as I do not wish to hang my hat fully on any particular scientific theory and have my interpretations of Scripture become beholden to my views of science. But neither do I think a person ought to have they views of science beholden to a particular interpretation of Scripture that may be flawed or incomplete.

So there’s a sense in which I’m somewhat indifferent or ambiguous to the YE / OE debate, because I don’t see one’s view of the earth’s age, or even one’s view of whether complex life forms evolved from less complex ones, as being either a strong support of or hindrance to believe in God or in the reliability of the Bible (and matters of faith mean more to me than matters of science any day).

The thing that concerns me about the YE position is that so many people seem to think that their fundamental faith in God is tied up in it, so that, if their YE views are shaken, their whole faith crumbles. That is a dangerous place in which to place other believers, particularly our children, and woe to those who cause them to stumble by making such a connection in their minds.

The thing that concerns me about the OE position, particularly a full-blown theistic evolution, is that it could become too easy for God to be seen as irrelevant and His direct involvement in creation and history as mere allegory or myth. This could be a danger for our young people also, as they might chose to discard the “theistic” elements of theistic evolution in favor of atheistic evolution when they are exposed to the logic of philosophical naturalism that currently dominates the filed of science education.

I can’t say which danger is more likely or realistic. Since it has been said that about half of the folks at exchristians.net claim to have rejected the faith because they were taught YE, could it also be that about half who rejected the faith were taught an OE and/or theistic evolution view? I’d like to know if you have any information or statistics on that. I’m not saying I believe OE is just as likely to result in people leaving the faith as YE is, I’m just saying I don’t know whether or not one is more likely to result in people leaving the faith than the other. It could be that either one is something of an excuse for those who refuse to believe because of their inherently sinful natures, just as would be the case for all of us, if left to ourselves apart from God’s grace.

Anyway, sorry for the long comment, kinda thinking “out loud” here. Great article.

I’ve never had a problem believing the earth or the universe was old. I don’t believe it conflicts with anything in scripture. Interestingly, when I was in high school, going to FBC, Dallas, where Paige Patterson was on staff, they taught us that the earth was most likely old, and Genesis is an account of the information God wanted revealed, but was in no way an exhaustive history of the earth or of the universe.

I’ve have never looked to a majority to be the determinant of truth and I certainly don’t here, as well. I respect the disciplines of scientists and appreciate their contributions. However, in the same way, “lay people,” place, “clergy,” on pedestals that they have no business being on, we do the same for doctors and scientists. And I have found that in the same way a disproportionate number of church leaders fall short of our expectations, the same goes for doctors and scientists. To put it plainly, they’re not any smarter or authoritative than many, even compared to many outside of their disciplines, and often, and I do mean often, come to illogical and short-sighted conclusions.

You’re going to tell me there is credible evidence the universe is 14 billion years old? Are you sure it’s not 15 billion or 13 billion? Can they narrow it to say, 13.75-14.25 billion? Are they so sure that they would be willing to stake their life on that evidence or their ability to prove the evidence in a court? Same goes for the 4.6 billion age of the earth. Can we get real? When you’re talking about billions of years, and we’re on the earth less than 100 years, our perspective is extremely limited. They simply don’t know what they don’t know.

However, you have stated correctly throughout the article what these responses are; beliefs, theory.

MIchael

Bill went off to work and said he will refer you to some papers that will explain how accurate the dating methods are today. He said the answers to your questions about scientists and the dating are yes, yes and yes. What is little talked about in the YE circles is the evolution of incredibly accurate dating methods. (he said something about out to several decimal points-consistently).

Bill looked at a Wikipedia article really quickly and told me to refer you to that to get started. He will get you some better sources this weekend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

I became most irritated, a number of years ago, when I found out the old YE saw, about the inaccuracies of carbon dating, was a smokescreen. Yes, carbon dating was inaccurate (but more accurate than they claim) but carbon dating is not what is used for dating of the earth and the universe.In fact, we can get very real about the dating. There are new methods that have been around for years that are accurate and get the age down to several places beyond the decimal points. I always smile when I hear some Christian spouting off about carbon dating which is akin to saying that blood letting is an ineffective treatment for diseases. That’s true but no one is suing it.

One of the worst things that Ham and others have done is to paint every scientist who doesn’t agree with them as philosophical naturalists or heretics.I have met many along the way. Even many non-Christian scientists will state that they do not know the origin of the Universe.

One of these days I will write about my encounter with a world famous scientist, a nonChristian, on an airplane. We talked for over 2 hours. I asked him about origins, in other words, how did the stuff get into the point for the big bang. This man said, “Most good scientists will tell you we don’t know. And a true scientist will leave it at that. That is not our purview. We explain things that can be explained.”

As Bill was running out he told me to tell you that Francis Collins deals with this issue of theories/beliefs. He said that “Gravity is still only a theory.”However, after consistent testing we believe it to be true else people would be jumping off cliffs. Sometimes the evidence is so overwhelming that we know something to be true even when it is only a theory.

Finally, I know that scientists and doctors are fallible. That is why they have to go through layers of peer review in order to get a paper published in a major journal like Nature, Cell, etc. Many people have no idea how difficult it is to get a major paper published. I watched my own husband struggle with the nit picky questions ,the requests for more data, and on and on. But what I came to realize is the validity of having many people looking in on the process. Recently a locally based national researcher was proven to be a fraud by those reviewing his research. The invaded his lab, got his notebooks (each scientist keeps laboriously copious nots for each and everything that they do-like a running tab) and proved his guilt. It was the fellow scientists who did this. Fraud is not tolerated within the science world and there are many checks and balance in place to detect it.One thing you should know is that Ken Ham will not let his supposed science papers be reviewed by anyone who is not a YE proponent so his contention that he is peer reviewed is a baloney.

Doctors must go through these outcome meetings in which their peers (not people from their own group but others) review their morbidity and mortality cases to see if there is poor practice. These meetings are very hard on all of the doctors because questions are raised regarding every step of the process.

Now do a few frauds slip through. Yes, however they usually get caught. The same goes for science. I am sure a few rogue scientists have slipped through the system, However, when there is over whelming data by all scientists that all come to the same conclusions, it is most likely true unless there is a vast conspiracy. A few who have visited this site have suggested this. I don’t believe in a vast conspiracy over such a long periods of time and over the entire world. Surely someone would spill the beans. It would also mean that my own husband is part of this conspiracy. I have always wondered about him…..

Besides, there is great incentive to reveal a conspiracy- there is money to be had and interviews to give. Bill has stated this line over and over. If there was compelling scientific evidence for a YE, you find that there were atheistic scientists who believed in a YE. They would simple say the earth is 10,000 years old and there is still no God. There isn’t anyone like this because there is no credible scientific evidence.

From this point, I leave it up to him. Thank you for your ever thoughtful comments.

Junkster
Very interesting article. I found the choice of categories limiting. God is authoritative but He is also benevolent and judgmental. The homosexual paradigm was interesting. I believe that it can be an inborn trait due to a genetic variance but the acting on this impulse is a sin. I liken it to alcoholism. There could be a genetic predisposition to alcoholism but the sin is the acting out of this behavior. Do you think the survey indicated a nuanced view of God?

But, your point is well taken. What you believe to be true, and the particular trait of God you emphasize can color your belief system.

I wold recommend that our readers go to that article. It gives much food for thought. Thanks Dr. Junkster!

Just wanted to chime in and tell Dr Junkster that you also summed up my viewpoint as well:

“I am also a person who recognizes that devoted followers of Jesus can and do have a variety of interpretations of the Bible on many issues, and those differences of interpretation in no way indicate the depth of their love for God or how committed they are to the truth and reliability of His Word.”

I believe the Bible is true. I am not a scientist but I have no doubt that good scientists can back up what they believe with evidence. And perhaps I do not have evidence, but I have faith in the Creator and His Word. This OE/YE debate seems to me to be one of those issues that we will not fully understand until we get to heaven and the Lord explains stuff to us.

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old gained approval. By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.” ~Hebrews 11

This may sound too simplistic, but my reconciliation between YE and OE theories is pretty simple – we serve a God who is big enough to create the universe as he pleased. Perhaps each “day” of creation was a thousand or millions or billions of years. Perhaps it was accomplished in 6 24 hour periods and God made the earth to appear older than it really is. Personally, as long as you start the conversation with “God created the earth”, I’m good. Like I said, pretty simplistic. But I don’t want to use my time trying to understand science (which I don’t think I could anyway!). I want to use my life to the glory of my Creator and hopefully bring some folks with me to heaven.

Excellent article and debate! Thanks for all the viewpoints. 🙂

Dee,

Thanks for the response. I appreciate the dialogue, but you didn’t answer my question directly. Let me ask it again in my own words.

Do you and your husband believe that God created Adam and Eve as man and woman (much like you and me) or do you agree with the survey believing that God created a biological similar ancestor common with that of a primate and through a natural process, humans evolved from that ancestor.

Thanks again for your response.

Scott

Michael:
“They can calculate the rate of expansion in only the part of the universe they have access to, which might be a very small piece in a huge pie. They can’t credibly imply the whole universe is expanding at that rate. They can assume, but that assumption may be way off. Next, they don’t have enough data that could prove that the universe always expands at that pace. They also don’t have enough data to prove that at times the universe contracts. It’s like having a global warming debate. They can’t even agree about global warming with any sense of accuracy, but they are so sure about a universe infinitely more complex than just our weather? Come on!”

Expansion rates is just one of the ways the age is calculated. And yes it’s a rough way. Radiometric decay is another. And much more precise. It is also how the age of the Earth is calculated.

But as to the age of the universe the expansion methods give answers that align with the radiometric decay methods.

As to the “big bang”. What really happens is the evidence points back to a point in time where the universe was a very small very dense blob. And prior to that we have no evidence, just a lot of educated guesses. The big bang is one word for what happened at the implied zero point. Think of someone with a telescope on a small hill in Kansas. If he’s looking way off into the distance he might see a small dot appear, then grow larger, then start to look like a car then after a while be recognizable as a 52 Nash. Based on our knowledge about a 52 Nash we can extrapolate a lot about what happened since we saw that dot. Tire wear, gas used, etc… But prior to seeing that first point we can only make educated guesses about when they got gas, what direction they were headed, etc…

Now some will say you can’t see back into the past. But in astronomy you can. And what we see in many ways is a very detailed data recorder.

Michael (and anyone else who is interested),

Regarding the ASA PSCF article entitled “How old is it? How do we know?”

The link to PSCF Volume 58:4 is:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF12-06Young.pdf
The link to PSCF Volume 59:1 is:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF3-07Young.pdf
The link to PSCF Volume 59:2 is:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF6-07Young.pdf

Do you and your husband believe that God created Adam and Eve as man and woman (much like you and me) or do you agree with the survey believing that God created a biological similar ancestor common with that of a primate and through a natural process, humans evolved from that ancestor?

Scott,
The question that you raise regarding the Biblical teaching about Adam and Eve (which is by definition theological) and how it would mesh with the particular scientific view that humans evolved from ancestral forms in common with primates, is not addressed in this post. That said, I think it is a very good question. If you are interested, I would be happy to share the response of ASA members to a similar question.

Arce,

Thanks for weighing in on this matter. Given that all truth is God’s truth, and that truth is knowable, our challenge is to understand His truth as revealed in His Word. When it comes to the matter of origins, this is not as easy as some would profess.

Dear Junkster,

Thanks for your comment. Your emphasis on genuine humility and gracious behavior is appreciated. Now that I have had a moment to dwell on it, I think that your actual name “Junkster” is fully sufficient and fits you well since that is how God made you (without need for any other special title or salutation).

BTW, here is another recent article indicating an estimate of the age of the universe of about 13.7 billion years (using microwave energy measurements) .

http://media.www.jhunewsletter.com/media/storage/paper932/news/2010/10/07/ScienceTech/Hopkins.Professor.Wins.Shaw.Prize.For.Determining.The.Age.Of.The.Universe-3943087.shtml

Bill,
Thanks for the additional link.

Dee,
I think you’ve done a good job of maintaining civility while strongly disagreeing with the YE views. There’s nothing wrong with flatly stating that you believe something is wrong. Also nothing wrong with challenging the credentials and supposed facts of those who set themselves up as leaders or experts on a topic when you know they are not telling everyone the big picture.

I’ve never liked the arrogance and hostility that some YEers express toward fellow Christians who are fully committed to the Bible and the biblical truth of God as Creator but who differ on the particulars. I suppose that part of it, at least, is because YEers believe that any capitulation to any of the assumptions held by evolutionary scientists is compromise of the truth of the Bible. I think that partly stems from a misunderstanding of the nature of biblical truth and an insistence on one and only one interpretation of the relevant biblical texts. But YEers would do well to admit that they don’t understand all there is to know about the Bible or about science, and present their positions as possible alternative explanations that allow them to hold to their biblical interpretations while still being reasonable.

I’ve seen similar attitudes expressed by OEers toward YEers as well. OEers would do well to keep in mind that science can only take us so far toward understanding truth, and also remember the the theological underpinnings of the YE position and how significant the doctrinal concerns are in the minds of YEers (particularly the belief of YEers that there was no physical death of any kind in all of creation before Adam’s sin). To a YEer, questioning their science is akin to questioning foundational Christian doctrine.

So I think the place to start and seek to show folks first and foremost that there are alternative interpretations of Scripture that can allow someone to harmonize trust in the Bible with the conclusions of modern science. Too many people equate believing the Bible with believing that the Bible teaches a particular thing. Challenging them on this is what must be done with much gentleness and grace, as people are very wary of being told that what they believe isn’t true. Especially when the people they love and truth the most to tell them what the Bible says and means (their pastors) have always told them that, if you really believe the Bible, you must believe that it teaches that the Earth was created in 6 24 hour days about 6-10 thousand years ago and that there was no physical death before Adam’s sin. If the guy who is supposed to be looking out for your soul says that believing that there was death before Adam’s sin will inevitably result in believing that Jesus didn’t have to die for our sins (the key theological point of YEers), then most folks are apt to accept any scientific sounding explanation that they feel makes their faith more secure. That’s just human nature.

So, please, continue to firmly assert your positions, as it is vitally important for people to know that their faith is not dependent on any person’s conclusions from scientific inquiry. I’m only saying that’s it’s important to keep in mind that the debate isn’t just about the facts of science, or even just about one’s interpretation of Scripture, it is also about their feelings and insecurities as relates to their most foundational and cherished beliefs. If we see others as people who are just struggling to understand and apply their faith as best as they can, just like we are, it is easier to accept their faulty understandings of science, the Bible, and lots of other things.

I know, however, that it is particularly difficult when you are dealing with the YE leaders and spokespersons, who you feel either ought to know better (as scientists) or ought to shut up (as ignoramuses). 🙂 But they need grace, too.

You’re doing just fine, Dee; I’m just encouraging you not to let your frustrations be the driving factor in how you communicate on these issues, but let it be love for God and for people.

Dee,

I’m glad this discussion is civil and has not been hijacked by shrill ideologues and cave trolls straight out of Tolkien. Believe me, I am no supporter of Ham or AIG but I still lean toward YEC in spite of the preponderance of evidence against it (based on what we currently~(italics) know to be measurable scientific fact). But as I’ve commented before and still maintain, trend of evidence and formal proof are not the same thing.

You wrote @Thu, Oct 07 2010 at 10:12 pm:
“…My husband has an interesting thought. He says that if there was science to prove there is a young earth, atheistic scientists would be happy to show their findings. Scientists love notoriety and their names in lights as well.They would simply say that the earth is young and there is still not God. In other words, where the heck are the YE atheists? There are none because there is no science to support it…”

Suppose for the sake of argument that cogent evidence for YEC does exist. The likelihood that it’ll ever get published, whether it’s from a Dawkinsian atheist or a rabid form of Ken Ham is virtually zero. –note that I did not include zero, just the neighborhood close to it– It would be career suicide for even the most intrepid academic. Can you imagine the snickering on the cocktail circuit? And we won’t even go into funding, who gets what and where it goes. The older tenured Prof. would think long and hard about the consequences of his or her paper in terms of blowback and collateral damage. Even a young and enterprising associate Prof. working his or her way up through the ranks would quickly realize that any hopes of tenure would evaporate like an ice cube on a hot August sidewalk. In my own defense, I feel that I am more skeptic than cynic. I have a healthy respect for how the world works and realize also that the academic world is not above chicanery and self preservation at any cost.

And Dr. Jon, many thanks for the article on microwave measuring techniques to provide a better resolution for the age of the Cosmos. I am very impressed with how far we have come since Brahe’s brass quadrants (angular measure) and Harrison’s chronometer (time)!

Muff
My husband has just left for work and I want to speak to you from my heart. I know some absolutely wonderful people in the sciences, both non-Chhristians and Christians. many of them are deeply committed and honest people who would always speak the truth, no matter the consequences. There are even leaders in the sciences who are believers. These folks review research with honesty and distinction. They would never, ever reject honest research.

It is very painful for me to see you indict the entire science profession as being involved in chicanery and conspiring not to let uncomfortable research be published.Of course there are jerks in science.There are jerks in christianity too. But, the majority of people I know are decent people. My husband is included in this assessment.

My husband discussed what you said this morning. He said that there are many Christian who would love to verify that the earth is young. It would make things so much more simple. But he has to be honest as do many of his colleagues. I go to church that has a plethora of people in the research community. One man has a world famous lab researching cancer. Another is the head of the department of chemistry at one of the major universities in our area.

I gave a talk for people in the church as a non-scientist. I talked about the honesty, integrity, and commitment to the faith of these Christians in the science world. I even talked about the integrity of many great scientist who are not Christians. The one cancer researcher came up to me to thank me for sharing from my heart about how the majority of people act in the sciences.

Muff, I don’t care if you are young earth. I even don’t care that you choose to ignore the evidence as you said.

“Believe me, I am no supporter of Ham or AIG but I still lean toward YEC in spite of the preponderance of evidence against it (based on what we currently~(italics) know to be measurable scientific fact).

But I would ask that you be cautious of indicting an entire profession. There are too many good people who are brave who would report any evidence they had even if it disproved the current trend. And there are enough Christians in the sciences who would make sure that research became well known.

Muff
You claimed that there is no science being published that supports young earth because there are no scientists willing to allow its publication. There are many honest scientists who would allow such publication if there was evidence.Francis Collins would champion the cause if there was such evidence. He is not a mean-spirted man who wishes to hurt other Christians and suppress evidence. I know it is hard to accept this but many good, decent Christian scientists do not believe any evidence has been offered that is worthwhile. We can’t have it both ways. Either there is evidence of widespread chicanery or this is not.

Here is what you said.
“Suppose for the sake of argument that cogent evidence for YEC does exist. The likelihood that it’ll ever get published, whether it’s from a Dawkinsian atheist or a rabid form of Ken Ham is virtually zero. –note that I did not include zero, just the neighborhood close to it– It would be career suicide for even the most intrepid academic. Can you imagine the snickering on the cocktail circuit? And we won’t even go into funding, who gets what and where it goes. The older tenured Prof. would think long and hard about the consequences of his or her paper in terms of blowback and collateral damage.”

My husband worked with many well-known scientists who are atheist and agnostics. He always stated his belief in God and he was treated well.He simply does not believe the evidence for a young earth. As some folks will tell you, we Parsons do not shrink from controversy. If such evidence existed we would be the first ones on the band wagon making sure that the evidence got into the right hands.And, it would get published. And many Christians would be dismayed because many of these scientists would believe the evidence and still be atheists.

Perhaps Bill and I misunderstood you. You appeared to be saying that the evidence would not be published. Are we wrong? But we are not mad at you either way. Just a bit hurt to be lumped in with some of the jerks in science.

Zeta:

1. “I am not sure you have thought through the position you are taking.”

2. “For example, I am not sure you are aware of this,”

3. “And I am quite confident, having spent way too much time of my own arguing with a few of these folks, that their reasons for their position are, in fact, stronger than the reasons you have given here for doubting the estimated age of the universe!”

4. “There are a few basic principles of science that you essentially are tossing out the door.”

Zeta, are you trying to be condescending or is it unintentional? The condescension might be understandable, though, if you had presented something that proved my statements wrong, but you ended up affirming them, instead.

First, you write, “Further, we see no observed variation in Pulsar frequency that would manifest itself if the speed of light has changed substantially over time. And finally, we also can see objects as far away as 12.8 billion light years.”

The way you wrote is accurate; “we see no observed,” meaning the obvious, we see what we observe and we don’t see what we do not observe. You said. “we seek to find the simplest, most concise explanation consistent with the largest possible data set.” That seems like a reasonable approach. That is why I stated the obvious…there is a point in which scientists are limited in what they can observe, allowing them NO DATA to assess. We don’t know what we don’t know.

You said. “as well as can be discerned by the evidence we currently have.” Thanks for validating my point for the second time. You’re qualifying how well and how much we can observe, which IS my point.

“Could there be something ‘before that’? Yes, but it would not be this universe.” Yes, you agreed, there could have been something before our current universe. But, due to our lack of ability to observe before that time, and beyond our scope, we are unable to know. Third agreement.

“Now basically, this CMB itself is essentially an observation limit for the universe. We aren’t going to ever see much beyond it. ” Fourth.

“So, in summary, while technically you have a ‘point’, (Fifth), it is a point whose end essentially means we can’t make any useful statements about what we do know, and it tends to imply the universe, God’s creation, really is not something knowable or understandable.”

That is NOT what I’m saying. I appreciate the science and it is useful in relation to what we can know, functionally. God’s creation, like God, Himself, is both unknowable and knowable. And we can make useful statements about His creation. There is great value in the science. And I have no issue with the quality of science you refer to.

What I object to is the blanket statement that we know the age of the universe. That’s hogwash. That’s almost like saying, “X” is the last number, or, “0” is definable, when we know that numbers go on infinitely and when we know we could never arrive at, “0.” You might be able to estimate the age of the universe you KNOW, but the universe we know may only be a pimple on the butt of an ant in relation to 1000 other universes. When you talk about our universe expanding, I don’t disagree. But, we don’t know how the space beyond what we observe acts or looks like.

“Perhaps there is room for some variation in the estimated age of the Earth. Perhaps even for the age of the Universe. (Sixth) But does it really make sense to take the kind of skeptical attitude toward these estimates you have taken?”

Perhaps? Trust me, there is plenty of room for variance. Again, maybe not in relation to what we know, but in the context of what we don’t know, we could be completely off. Like I told my son, when he asked if we could travel to the end of the universe to get to heaven, we might travel billions of years to get there, only to realize that we’ve just started.

Zeta:

Your first sentence is priceless. “Certainly it is not my intent to be condescending, and yet I do not think you understand the strength of the evidence that is before you in terms of the history of what we can observe.”

Interpretation – I wasn’t condescending on purpose, followed by another condescending comment, proving that you really don’t get that you ARE condescending.

Regardless, your two posts demonstrate why people like me are skeptical. We’re skeptical, not because there isn’t good science, (and as a side note, I DO understand there is strong evidence regarding the aging of the earth and universe), but because, like soooooo many doctors who look at the symptoms and diagnose wrongly, scientists gather good data and draw wrong conclusions. You have responded twice to my posts, trying to prove what I’ve already conceded, yet you can’t see that I’ve already conceded to your good science, and keep talking down to me, like a doctor does, trying to prove what I already understand.

Maybe our differences arise from how we define the universe. One place defines it as the totality of everything that exists, including all physical matter and energy, the planets, stars, galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space. However, another place describes it as the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated. In the first definition, one that I have used as my reference, I understand that things can exist without being able to be observed. The definition you seem to be operating from is that which is observable.

My issue is not with your universe of observable data and the conclusions you draw from the science related to that. My issue is that there is more that exists that you won’t be able to observe that constitutes my universe definition. My assumption is that your universe is surrounded by mine, all the things that exist, but are unknowable, presently. And applying the same scientific logic you wrote about,

“but rather, we notice that the mass if the sun is sufficiently larger than that of the planets for it to effectively ‘be the boss’ in our region of space, and that likewise our galaxy’s mass directs the movements of the sun and so forth,”

then my universe of all that exists, being potentially massively larger than your universe of observable things, is the boss and dominates what is, including all the laws associated with it. Then the universe of observable things is simply operating within, possibly very different laws and properties. The point is, there is no way to put an age on what I call the universe.

“We are talking about this universe, the one we live in.”

I hate to break it to you, but if our universe, by your definition, sits in a sea of universes, than we live in that greater universe, as well.

See, with all your science, looking billions of years to the end of what you would call our universe, you lack perspective. If you can’t observe beyond what is far greater than what we can observe, then you don’t know if what we experience in your limited universe is the norm or completely out of the norm, like a cancerous cell. That is why I am skeptical, not of your science, but your declarations of truth; because you miss the obvious and your perspective is too narrow.

“You seem concerned there is some part of the universe beyond it, and I am not merely concerned, I am quite sure there is something beyond it. That is not the issue.”

More condescension. You say I’m concerned, so you one-up me by saying you’re quite sure. Well, I beg your pardon, but I’m quite sure, as well. That’s why I’ve made the point. And it IS the issue, although you don’t seem to be able to get that.

“Yet you lump the two together? This again speaks of you not really being aware of how strong that evidence is.”

More condescension. No, I was careful not to lump the two together, understanding that we have more observable data regarding the earth.

Why the skepticism? I don’t think of it as skepticism. It’s called observation of the obvious. Perspective is everything. And the perspectives of the scientists regarding the age of the universe, as I view it, are extremely limited. I don’t have a problem with the science. I have a problem with declarations of truth without the proper qualifiers in place.

I’d be okay if someone says, “Based on our study, we believe the universe, as we know it, is around 14 billion years old. However, we could be completely wrong, because of all that exists that we don’t know about.”

I’m not okay with, “We know the universe is around 14 billion years old.”

Come on, where’s the humility?

Zeta:

You claim I’m aggravated about your comments and hostile and offended about this issue. Case in point of an assumed scientist making observations and coming to a conclusion that’s false. No wonder there is so much skepticism out there about declarations of truth scientists make.

Next paragraph you come to the conclusion that I’m, “annoyed.” Second wrong conclusion. Skepticism heightened regarding your credibility in drawing accurate conclusions. I simply pointed out for clarification, so we could get on the same page about what we’re talking about. It wasn’t my own private definition. I was using a definition in Wikipedia and another in Webster’s. In fact, almost every definition you look up defines universe as all that exists.

But, if you want to nit pick and call it the ‘sea of universes’ or ‘multi-universe,’ fine. The point is, we both know what we’re talking about, which is that which exists beyond our universe. And yes, it would be horribly misguided for scientists to say how old it might be. That is the point I’ve been making from the beginning. See, I really do understand. Wow!

First, you make the statement, regarding the multi-verse, that it would be horribly misguided for any scientist to say anything about how old it might be. What’s funny, is that they call it multi-verse, making an assumption that there is more than one, yet, you say there is no evidence that it actually exists. And, with no evidence that it actually exists, you made an earlier comment that you are SURE they exist. Do you notice anything inconsistent here?

“you also don’t seem to understand that there also is very likely more to this universe than we can see”

Another wrong conclusion. I do understand that. See, I keep writing things, you miss them, then come to some off-base conclusion that I don’t understand them, after I had already written what you say I don’t understand. Is it any wonder that I’m skeptical?

“unless it is possible for different parts of the universe to have different beginnings, which still implies the part we live in, the part that has the potential to affect us, started 13+ billion years ago.”

It IS possible. That’s the point. Again, I’m not necessarily arguing the conclusions derived from the science we have, it’s what we don’t know that can throw the whole thing into a tailspin.

That’s fine, if you want to take a shot at my humility. It’s not uncommon for a doctor or scientist to feel threatened when someone they are arrogantly lecturing to or treating actually doesn’t worship what they think they know. So, they criticize the ones who have the audacity to question their expertise. By the way, that’s part of what this whole blog is about. Dealing with the attitude of superiority of those who lead in a field, in particular, pastors. But, that could apply here. Scientist gets frustrated that someone can think as logically if not more logically than herself, so she criticizes to even the playing field. Been on the receiving end of that before. Please, take the plank out of your own eye before you attempt to take the speck out of mine, regarding humility. Then, you’ll have some credibility.

Let’s be clear about what this debate has really been about. You take offense that someone would dare question what you think you know, in my opinion. But let’s get back to the real issue that Dee brought up; there is evidence that the earth is older than the “Young Earth” theorists believe. I agreed with her from the beginning regarding that. I also stated, that position is not in conflict with the bible, because the bible is historical, but not exhaustive. That conclusion can also be drawn regarding what exists. We can see what is historical, in science, and draw conclusions. But, what we see in history, physically, in the universe and multi-verse, is not exhaustive.

Finally, I share your enthusiasm for progress we are making and am in no way offended by science, explained and qualified with humility.

Hi Michael,

In this post I like to tackle your wine example and what I see as some of the problems with it. But I have taken to heart that you perceive my approach as condescending and I am going to do my very best not to come across that way. If I still do, please accept that I am doing my best not to.

Now I do, as you, believe in the miracle where Jesus turned the water into wine. I also agree with you that without the revelation of Christ or some observer that this wine was originally water that miraculously transformed into wine a scientist examining the wine would likely assume it had some age corresponding to what they could ascertain from its structure. What I don’t know is to what extent the wine would appear to have age.

So here is the issue I’d like to raise. The issue is the conflict between what I like to call (and others as well) the appearance of age verses the appearance of history. To outline the difference, let us suppose that in the wine that Jesus made from the water we also found specific identifiers that tied it to a specific winery in the region. Identifiers like pollen grains from plants that were in bloom at the approximate time the wine would have been being pressed had it actually been made 11 years ago. Further, let us suppose that we also found in the wine microscopic traces of dust and stone from a particular local winery, or even bits of clothing or other debris identifiable as belonging to specific persons that worked at that winery when this wine was produced.

Now – it would seem to me anyway – that if this miraculously produced wine had all that in it we would be justified in doubting the testimony of the witness that said it was originally water. And if it was indeed originally water and miraculously turned into wine, then it would seem that God would have gone to extra-ordinary lengths not merely to give the wine the good taste of an aged wine, but to plant every possible misleading component so as to mask, hide, and make impossible to determine naturally that this wine was indeed specially created in an instant from water.

Most of us would be surprised to find that level of detailed and misleading appearance of history in the wine, though we would indeed expect it to have the appearance of age associated with a properly aged wine.

And so what I would then point out is that, while there is no reason God could not have made our universe in a very short period of time a few thousand years ago, He apparently did so not merely with the appearance of age (comets in orbits with periods > 6,000 years or proper soils for plants to grow in), but with the appearance of history. A history which must be a falsehood if the universe is anything less that billions of years old.

So, from my perspective, I have a very hard time thinking that it makes sense theologically for the universe to be in the state it is unless its real history matches its apparent history. God is a God of truth, and a universe where the history is merely appearance rather than reality objectively stands in the face of a God who is a God of truth.

Or at least, that is how it seems to me. And so, working from that belief God is a God of truth and not deception, I feel comfortable saying that the Earth is very likely 4.6 billion years old, even though I know God could have made it miraculously a few thousand years ago. And the reason is the apparent history it contains coupled with the reality God is not a god of deception or lies, but a God of Truth implies that it is indeed what it appears to be.

All this is said recognizing you have no issues with an old Earth or Universe, and is aimed at clarification of what I see are issues with the specific objection you raise in the wine example.

Zeta

Even though I may have used up any capital or currency I may have had on this blog, permit me one last comment. YEC & OEC are not hills to die on, nor are they litmus tests for the status of one’s Christian faith, non-faith, or one‘s integrity as a human being. And Michael, don’t take it personally, but Zeta knows his stuff. From what we can observe and measure thus far, the deck is not stacked in favor of a young Cosmos. But this is not to say that no new model other than the accepted one (Einsteinian) will be conjectured or confirmed by experiment. To say that no new model is possible would truly be hubris. For many years now, I have long suspected that the future is not exhaustively settled either in this world or the next, which is why I also lean toward open theism (Pinnock, Boyd, et al.)
Pax and all the best to everyone here.

Muff

Dee and Dr. Jon,

Breaking News!!! Scientists (briefly) trap elusive antimater

http://www.aolnews.com/science/article/scientists-briefly-trap-elusive-antimatter/19723607?icid=maing%7Cmain5%7C1%7Clink3%7C26905

I immediately thought of you and Junkster when I read it.