How Should A Christian Understand The Age Of The Earth Controversy?

Some YCs argue that old-earth views, by placing animal death before the fall, conflict with Romans 5:12. OCs respond that Romans 5:12 says nothing about animal death. The apostle Paul’s context treats only of sin and death’s entrance into the human race.

Some YCs worry that old-earth interpretations make the Bible subservient to science. And it is true that old-earth interpretations arose due to the (pre-Darwinian) discovery of enormous numbers of extinct animals such as dinosaurs. But this same data also led YCs to interpret Scripture in light of science (such as interpreting the book of Job to describe dinosaurs). Indeed, some YCs have suggested plate tectonics as the possible interpretation for Genesis 10:25, and some offer a young-earth “big bang” interpretation of the first four creation days. Moreover, virtually all creationists now believe biblical descriptions of a stationary earth and revolving sun are from a human observational standpoint and are not intended as technical scientific descriptions.

Some YCs charge OCs with caving in to evolutionary theory, alleging the “long ages” are synonymous with the evolutionary system. Macroevolutionary theory needs an old earth, but inferring that old-earth views are thereby macroevolutionary is to commit a logical fallacy (x and y regularly occur together; therefore, x is the cause of y). By this same logic, YCs can be charged with accommodating naturalistic views for accepting “microevolution” (the idea that species change over time); Darwinian macroevolution needs microevolution, but this does not entail the two being synonymous. Neo-Darwinists contend that the layers of fossil strata constitute the main evidence for macroevolution. But YCs and OCs agree that this same fossil record, with its scarcity of credible transitional fossils, does not reveal a history of common biological descent. YCs typically understand fossils as depositions from Noah’s flood, and OCs view them as artifacts of supernatural creative acts separated by long time spans.

Some YCs even contend that OCs have contributed to the demise of Western culture, but such contentions are historically unjustified. References by YCs to OCs as “evangelical evolutionists,” “semi-creationists,” or “compromisers” have clouded rather than clarified the debate. Indeed, YCs are not agreed as to just what is “evolutionary” in matters such as ice ages, star formation, and the origins of species.

A lesson from a past controversy may be helpful. Early in the twentieth century, some held the pretribulational rapture to be central to the faith. Great controversy followed, but eventually most Bible believers realized the issue was not worthy of such contention. Perhaps one day this will be true of the age-of-the-earth controversy. Creationist leaders should work hard to understand the data. And exploring, holding, and promoting various creationist views are legitimate projects. But promoting the controversy as a basis for disunity in the church is another matter altogether.