How Did God Create the Earth?

Do Old-Earth vs. Young-Earth Debates Matter?

For many Christians, the question of whether or not the Earth is relatively young or old is irrelevant. After all, Genesis 1:1 proclaims the most important aspect of identifying God as creator: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (NASB).

Why Does Debating Creation matter?

American Christians enjoy the privilege of believing and teaching their own interpretations of the Bible without sanction from the Catholic Church: a privilege denied to Europe for the better part of 2,000 years. Without getting sidetracked on a portrayal of church history, it is sufficient to say that the Catholic Church was and is concerned with unchecked interpretations of Scripture. Freedom exists in America for even the most uneducated believer to preach and teach, this concern is justified. Instead of the Catholic Church enforcing a single dogmatic position on any biblical topic, Protestants offer a plethora of interpretations. Both Catholic and Protestant ways are dangerous if Christians in the pews are content to let someone standing behind a podium tell them what to believe. Each person is held accountable to God for his or her own pursuit of truth. This is the cornerstone behind Love With All Thy Mind ministry, to teach reasonable faith through encouraging Christians to think for themselves and to equip them with knowledge and resources toward pursuing truth.

Although Christians may be comfortable accepting that God created all things based on Genesis 1:1 and find the need to know how unnecessary, there are at least three good reasons for pursuing the answer. First, believers have a responsibility to test their theology regularly so that they are not deceived by false teaching. Second, if believers hold inaccurate views on creation, then logically they will teach others in error and become guilty of false teaching. There is a difference between misleading others through a reasonable lack of understanding and misleading others through a lack of effort to understand (see Prov. 12:15). Lastly, if the Earth does not bear evidence that it was created in the way Christians describe, then unbelievers will have less reason to pursue an understanding of other tenants of Christian faith. In short, if believers are content to trust whatever they are taught and not expose themselves to challenges to their own interpretations of Scripture, then they are guilty of the same weak faith that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and other religious groups display. Their faith is in the people conveying the message rather than the message itself.

Old-Universe Sets the Stage for Old-Earth

Before digging into the most common arguments for and against an Old-Universe, I openly admit that I am not a scientist. However, my research includes views of both Christian and secular scientists to determine consistencies and holes of their cases. To my surprise, many of the conclusions drawn by secular scientists concur with Old-Universe Christian scientists. Young-Universe Christian scientists are, by far, in the minority. The Young-Universe and Young-Earth views criticized in this blog are those communicated by Henry Morris, John Morris, David Hall, J. L. Duncan III, and Ken Ham. The evidence is so compelling that my own belief changed from Young-Universe to Old-Universe creation.

THE BIG BANG has been a term mockingly bantered around by Christians for decades to the point where many evangelicals simply agree that it is a baseless theory. This is unfortunate for those weaker believers who trust spiritual leaders who should know better. A growing number of secular scientists are using the word “created” for what caused the Big Bang. There is no other word in the English language to describe something coming into existence from nothing. What characterizes the Big Bang is the magnitude of the power and expansion of the event. As to the universe’s size and power, all Christians agree. However, the expansion of the universe is still a matter of debate. Whereas Young-Universe Christians believe that God created the universe just in (or nearly in) the state we now observe, the astrological evidence supports a rapidly expanding universe. If we look at the current observable rate of expansion (considering more factors as we learn of their existence), we narrow the time of the Big Bang. Young-Universe creationists claim that scientists continue to change their “guess” on when the universe originated. This is deceptive. The best scientific measurements of the time have yielded the following universe ages during each of these three years: 1991 > 16 ± 3 billion years, 2001 > 14 ± 1 billion years, and 2003 > 13.7 ± 0.2 billion years. Scientists are not changing their minds but narrowing the window of the Big Bang based on increasing evidence. Furthermore, an expanding universe is described in the Bible (see Job 9:8; Ps. 104:2; Isa. 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Jer. 10:12; 51:15; and Zech. 12:1). The biblical model of creation being both complete and ongoing matches the Big Bang model.

LIGHT is one of the biggest obstacles for Young-Universe creationists to overcome. Simply put, how does the light from stars millions of light years reach Earth if stars were only created thousands of years ago? Three objections commonly arise as follows. First, “Astronomers are wrong about the distances to stars and galaxies.” This is a desperate objection. It would be akin to questioning our ability to measure the Earth’s distance from the Sun. Astronomers use a wide variety of measuring tools which independently confirm distances. The uncertainty between most of these methods are within 15 percent, which comes nowhere close to supporting a young universe.

Second, “The speed of light was faster when God created the universe than it is now.” It is true that God could have miraculously caused light to travel faster earlier in time. However, nothing in nature nor in the Bible supports the belief that God purposefully removes or intentionally hides the evidence of his miracles. When Young-Universe creationists attack the evidence of an old universe with “God could have” statements, they rarely understand the scientific implications of their suggestions. Since God performs miracles in the Bible, we can see that the effects of the miracles are natural even though the miracle itself was supernatural. Following the same pattern, if light’s velocity changed significantly during cosmic history, physical life would become impossible. Changing the speed of light (the “c” in Albert Einstein’s E = mc2) would likely have increased the sun’s heat a trillionfold or else the elements essential for building human bodies would not exist.

Lastly, “God created light already in progress.” In addition to having no evidence, this is scientifically unsupportable because as light travels through space, it broadens and reddens. To suggest that God artificially fixed these effects of light traveling vast distances is to imply intentional deceit on a vast scale. Since truth, by definition, is free from error or contradiction, light will not bear false evidence. It is merely our understanding of the evidence that can be in error. When science appears to contradict the Bible, we should not reject either. Rather, we need to reexamine our interpretations. The facts of nature and Scripture will always agree (Rom. 1:20).

STELLAR BURNING provides astronomers with data for measuring the color and brightness of flames to determine how long a star has been burning. Opponents argue that this method is uncertain, widely disputed, and irrelevant to the understanding of creation. Regarding its being uncertain, this is simply naïve. Astronomers have measured stellar burning of millions of stars with estimated uncertainties within 5%. As far as being widely disputed, this only occurs among Young-Universe creationists. As far as being irrelevant to creation, the opposite is true. Have you ever noticed that God created plants, vegetation, and fruit prior to appointing the sun, moon, and stars over Earth (see Gen. 1:9-19)? The text reads that the Lord caused the plants to “sprout,” that is, to grow and produce seed, a process which takes much longer than 24 hours.

Furthermore, plant growth requires photosynthesis. What is the most logical light source: light from the universe that God already created or, as Young-Universe creationists claim, light from God himself? The only reason they suppose God’s shekinah glory brought forth plants is to support the presupposition that solar light did not yet exist. However, Genesis does not say that God “began” the creation process of the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day, but that God “made” (a completed action) the cosmic bodies.* He had “placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light to the Earth” (Gen 1:17) and during the fourth day, they came to determine seasons and distinguish between day and night. There is nothing in the Hebrew text that forces the sun, moon, and stars to be non-existent prior to the fourth day or for light to not be present upon the Earth during the third day. If Earth and plant life existed prior to the celestial beings, then what caused the Earth’s heat, light, gravity, rotation, and orbit prior to the fourth day that would be required to sustain life? Furthermore, astronomers conclude that the moon’s presence in Earth’s orbit would be required for life to be possible and, therefore, could not be created following the growth of plant life.

*Astronomers’ research concludes that our solar system began to form about 4.5 billion years ago. Once inhabited by hundreds of planets, the universe was in cosmic chaos as the planets’ gravitational pulls caused collisions until only the present-day planets survived. Repeated cosmic collisions and gravitational pulls over an extended period of time accounts for Uranus’ sideways orbit and why Neptune and Uranus are further away from the Sun than Saturn, although their composition suggests they were formed nearer to the Sun than Saturn.

Old-Earth Creationism (OEC) vs. Young-Earth Creationism (YEC)

Let me begin this section by reminding thinking Christians that it will not do to pick the sides: the Bible or science. Both explain truth: the Bible by theological means and science by physical means. As long as we agree that God does not intentionally mislead through his creation, then we can also agree that the only room for error is in our understanding of the facts. Allow me to emphasize, there is nothing in the Hebrew text of Genesis that precludes OEC. It is my hope that believers who disagree with the below views do so because the biblical and physical evidence compels them and not simply because it goes against what they were taught.

GEOLOGY is one of the leading reasons for believing in OEC. In my previous blog, “Was Noah’s Flood Global?,” I provided a brief overview of the overwhelming geological evidence against a recent global Flood. The Earth bears no record of being completely submerged and radically transformed approximately 4,500 years ago according to OEC beliefs. If we let the Earth tell its own story, then we get a picture of continental drifts, mountain elevations, and even the carving of the Grand Canyon caused by long natural geological processes. What is more compelling is that independent dating methods verify the age of the Earth as approximately 4.5 billion years old and the lowest layers of the Grand Canyon (which YEC claims was laid down by the Flood) as 1.1-1.3 billion years old. Many of my arguments against a recent Flood being responsible for shaping the face of the Earth apply to this creation debate and will, therefore, not be repeated.

Three geological points in regard to creation will be added here. First, although YEC explains that the Flood caused oceanic fossils found atop the Earth’s mountains, OEC attributes their presence to all land having been submerged until the third day of creation when dry land appeared. This is supported by two points: (1) there are not land animal fossils equally distributed – both across the top of the world or throughout geological strata and (2) marine animal fossils predate land animal fossils. Second, despite suggestions to the contrary by YEC proponents, no credible evidence suggests the coexistence of primates and the great extinct dinosaurs. For example, the fossilized dinosaur bones within the Grand Canyon are distinctly in separate layers, supporting dinosaurs’ extinction by the end of the Jurassic period (approx. 65 million years ago). Finally, millions of generations of life would need to predate humans in order to generate the levels of limestone, marble, oxygen, water, topsoil, oil, coal, salt, gas, phosphate, gypsum, etc. that geologists say our Earth would need for human habitation.

THE APPEARANCE OF AGE is a common explanation provided by YEC for the “old” looking Earth on which we were created. One common argument is, if God created Adam as a full-grown adult, ready for garden labor and capable of the speech required to name animals, then he certainly could have made the universe and Earth with the appearance of age. Such wording changes the question from “How did God create?” to “Could God have created like this?” Most Christians believe that God “could” create the Earth by a variety of means. However, he chose to create this Earth within the laws of physics that he designed. What I am suggesting, based on the biblical pattern of miracles and the physical evidence of the world, is that Adam, if created instantaneously as an adult, would not have borne scars of falling out of a tree as a kid, had hardened heals from years of walking barefoot, or had 20+ years of wear to the enamel of his teeth. Likewise, if Earth (and the universe) was created with the appearance of age, it would not show evidence of massive long-term change. To suggest that God created the world with the appearance of age implies that God covered up his miracle of creation, something not recorded of any miracle in the Bible.

THE SIX DAYS OF CREATION are six 24-hour consecutive days according to YEC. This belief cherishes a reading of Genesis from a face value approach, which, in general, is a good principle to understand the Bible. However, there are important aspects in understanding other languages that can affect the “face value.” Biblical Hebrew has relatively few nouns compared to English. Each noun depends on other grammatical factors in the sentence for translating it accurately into English. The word “day” is an appropriate and literal translation for the Hebrew word yôm (יום). However, this is because “day” is flexible in English much like Hebrew. The word yôm can mean 24 hours but is not restricted to that meaning. It can literally mean either a twenty-four-hour period, the daylight hours, or any long (but definite) period of time. YEC advocates insist that this approach is to interpret yôm figuratively. This is not the case. For instance, if I say, “one day she will be my wife,” I literally mean that she will be my wife, but only an insensible person would construe a literal understanding of that statement to mean that she would be my wife for 24 hours. Figurative language means that a word is used to symbolize something other than what it directly means (e.g., using fire to mean rage). Since a long period of time is one of the three possible definitions for yôm, this language is literal not figurative. The defense that a 24-hour day is the only literal definition for yôm is inaccurate and misleading. Were that the case, then “day” in Genesis 2:4 could not be used to refer to all six days of creation (cf. Gen 1:1). Furthermore, yôm is the only biblical Hebrew word that can refer to a long period with a definite start and end point. How often we read about the Day of the Lord throughout the Bible but few of us (hopefully) think that his judgment or his reign will only last 24 hours. And whereas twenty-four-hour days in the Bible are bracketed by evening to evening, creation days conclude with the phrase, “There was evening and there was morning.” This repeated format indicates time periods with definite start-and-stop epochs, rather than six consecutive 24-hour days.

GENEALOGIES throughout Genesis attest to the book’s historicity according to both OEC and YEC supporters. These genealogies are where YEC derives dates for creation and Noah’s Flood. By adding up the years between generations, YEC places creation between 4,000-10,000 BC (usually closer to 4,000 BC). This is very compelling evidence to our American culture, which highly values complete and accurate records for everything, including genealogy. This value does not always translate equally for biblical families. Biblical genealogists appear to value accuracy but not always completeness. Evidence for this is demonstrated by the conflicting genealogies between Genesis 11 and Luke 3; and between 1 Chronicles 3, Matthew 1, and Luke 3. It is not clear why omissions were made but they are evident. Comparative analysis of overlapping genealogies throughout the Bible align with each other between 10 and 90 percent of the time. Like other areas in the Bible using math to understand histories and prophecies often lead to confusion. It is best to follow more substantial evidence to where it leads and then ensure that it does not contradict the genealogies all together.

THE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER of the Genesis creation account is evident through what scientists have discovered about the Earth’s origin. Observations on how solar systems are formed, the fossil record, the pattern of extinct species, plants predating animals, and animals predating mankind contribute to the picture presented in Genesis 1, thus supporting OEC. God knew precisely how to form the universe 14 billion years in advance for producing an environment that could support the life he would later create. He further set things in motion to form an unlikely moon from the debris of another planet colliding with Earth about 4.25 billion years ago. This collision would alter the atmosphere on Earth to condition it for life. These are not random theories but are the only reasonable cosmic scenarios that could have produced the life-conducive world we know today. Astronomers do not attribute the possibility of human habitation on Earth to a single unlikely phenomenon but to over thirty unlikely astrological phenomena. The combination of all of these unlikely factors contributing to a planet like Earth makes it statistically likely that no other planet in the universe is fit for humans.

On the other hand, for a six 24-hour consecutive day creation to be possible, not only is the scientific evidence we observe today deceiving, but conjecturing must occur. First, as previously stated, OEC accounts for plant life preceding solar lights by adding “divine light” to the narrative. Second, plants have to sprout and produce seeds at dramatically increased rates to occur within 24 hours. Third, Adam had an unreasonable amount of events occur in his first 24 hours: he was created, given instructions by God, cares for the garden, named all animals, found no one like himself, was placed in a “deep sleep” (during which God “built” a woman from his side), and received further instructions (along with Eve) from God. Furthermore, Adam responds to seeing Eve for the first time by exclaiming happa’am, meaning “now at length” or “at last!” This is an extraordinary response indeed had Adam existed less than one day.

“BY THE SEVENTH DAY God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done” (Gen. 2:2). What is absent from this day is the refrain, “There was evening and there was morning.” This is the first of three evidences that God’s creative work has paused for the duration of this heaven and Earth. By contrast, if YEC is true, then God’s creative act would have ceased for 24 hours and been insignificant. Creation could have resumed the next day, but it did not. This leads us to the next time we read of God creating. The second evidence is the resuming of God’s creation in Revelation 21:1—22:5, after the old things have passed away (see 2 Cor. 5:17). Lastly, whereas the fossil record testifies to new life-forms coming into existence prior to man’s creation, the introduction of any new species following mankind’s arrival immediately plummeted to a virtual zero. The significance of this case to the argument at hand is that the six days of creation are less likely to be 24 hours days if the seventh day of rest is demonstrated to be a long-term but fixed period of time.

Conclusion

There was once a time when Christians insisted that the Earth was the center of the universe. Now we know that to be false, but many Christians are still under the impression that God created the universe starting from the position of the Earth and moving outward. Why believe YEC since it contradicts physical evidence, and why not cautiously consider OEC, which confirms both nature and the Biblical account of creation? To the credit of many YEC Christians, they sincerely believe that they are defending the biblical faith against worldly deceptions that are masked as truth (akin to perceiving OEC as a wolf in sheep’s clothing). Unfortunately, like the church in Galileo’s day, they often confuse what the Bible states with their interpretation of what it states. In the end, traditional beliefs win the day with many. Therefore, those who challenge the status quo have the obligation to make the stronger case. In this case, that burden falls on OEC. After extensive research, I feel that the stronger case has been made a hundredfold in favor of OEC. How do I know that incorrect interpretation is not the fault of OEC advocates? Truthfully, it is the fault of every Christian to some extent, which is why the arguments need to be examined carefully to identify reasonable support for each conclusion. Overall, the tenants of YEC often demonstrate how creation “could have” occurred. YEC arguments rely highly on what is possible through God’s unlimited power and unknowable ways but without concern for some of his other characteristics, his laws of physics, or the consequences that six 24-hour creation days would have on the physical world. By contrast, OEC lets the Bible and nature tell their own story and continues the research required to better understand both. May God reveal to each believer the darkness of his or her own theology with his light. May we then have the humility to reevaluate our beliefs and draw ever closer to the Lord.

Feel free to submit comments and questions regarding YEC and OEC on my Contact tab.