The Age of the Earth--Does it matter?
Have you noticed that we quarrel over minor things with those closest to us; spouses, kids, friends, siblings? It is difficult for the average guy to quarrel with a total stranger over minor issues. Is it that we quarrel more with those who are most like us because it is more unsettling that they are not thinking the way they should think? Which might indicate that we are wrong about what we think to be right?
My approach: truth does not depend on my views (right or wrong), or the views of creationists or evolutionists. I suspect the reality is more like the experience of the six blind men of Hindustan and their individual description of an elephant (which were based on 'observed' facts).
The universe is multidimensional; even if we are all wrong, the truth remains unchanged.
The microphone captures sound better than it captures light. and the doctor's stethoscope is better for monitoring heart beats than for measuring a patient's temperature. Similarly, science tells us the universe works but cannot tell us why it was created, by whom and, what is right and what is wrong. Science is a crude tool for exploring philosophy and religion, or the arts.
The Bible is not a science textbook--therefore should not be expected to contain detailed scientific descriptions. (How should a super-technologist describe a cell phone or the internet to people who lived 1000 years ago?)
However, the bible if true should not negate true science. The two might appear to be contradictory in two instances: First, where bible is using literary language like metaphors and similes or is simply trying to communicate using the current knowledge of the audience [e.g. sun rising in east and setting in west]; Second, where science itself has not developed enough to make sense of the biblical description [e.g. cleaving of the earth].
Science and Atheism
Atheism is a 'faith', religion or philosophy--an inclination of the heart (mind set) and is different from science. Science is a body of knowledge based on empirical facts, postulations and theories..
The existence or not of God falls outside the scope of science. There are thousands of theistic scientists and thousands of atheist scientists.
Science is investigative and progressive, i.e. the laws and theories are subject to change as better instruments bring better measurements (Newton laws break down as size and mass become very small).
Academic freedom in today's brave new world
A hundred years ago, science knew that the atom was made up of a nucleus surrounded by negatively charged particles called electrons orbiting the nucleus. Today we know that the nucleus is made of different objects which sometimes behave like particles and sometimes like waves, and so also the electron.
Similarly, we can be sure that many things we know today will tomorrow be wrong as knowledge increases.
We know that everything that goes up comes down--gravity--but today, we have learnt to apply scientific knowledge in overcoming gravity.
Atheism is a bias, and the atheist scientist tends to be selective in the choice of postulates and theories, and experiments and conclusions. Theists also are biased--but they are generally less so, in my opinion. The biases of the atheist or theist cannot change the truth. But we should be aware that the scientist may be biased--and so learn to separate the true science from the philosophic bias of the scientist.
God, as God could create the world in nano-seconds if He chose to do so, or, in trillions of years. This means evolution does not disprove the reality of God.
But, The issue here is the reliability of the scriptures: If the current world was not created then the bible is mistaken. And if it is mistaken in something as fundamental as the origin of the present world then the general accuracy is questionable.
As a scientist I can see the apparent reasonableness of evolution theory, but I cannot accept it as the truth because there are so many unsatisfactory facts: e.g., sparsity of transition forms in fossil records (this accusation is supposed to be the greatest sin of creationists). Even if I put aside the inadequacy of fossils records, why can we not observe the process today? Has the evolutionary process stopped? If so who stopped it and when and why? Also, there is the complexity of the universe which does not give enough time to achieve the probability of evolution within the theorized time.
As a believer, I find it difficult to graft evolution into the creation story in Genesis. If the days are metaphorical (epochs of millions or billions of years), then what is the timing for the recreation of the earth? (New heaven and new earth in Revelation 21:1)
if the billions of years of evolution occurred between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 then how long did the recreation take? if six days, then where did evolution get the time for transition from one life form to another?
If creation took billions of years (i.e. evolution) then death was required for the less fit life forms to die out as evolution proceeded. If so, what was the consequence of sin? Genesis says death came from sin (leading to 'devolution') but evolution says death existed before sin.
What was the curse all about if death already existed?
Why did God call the creation good if there was already survival of the fittest, sickness and diseases?
What is redemption all about? (the last enemy is death--does it mean evolution will stop? If God has the power to stop death in the future, could He not have had the same ability to stop it in the past?)
In the millennial reign of Christ the Bible tells us people will live to 1,000 years: are we going to evolve to that state?
There will be no sickness and carnivores will change their diet: would these imply sudden change to our DNA instead of gradual change over millions of years as evolution teaches? If God can instantly change or redesign DNA in future why not in the past?
What is heaven all about? Will we still be evolving in heaven? If so, heaven could not be perfect.
Conclusion
Even if we can massage the biblical facts to fit in with evolution theory we still have the problem of the message of the bible which is totally contrary to the message of evolution theory. If we (millions of believers) have the right understanding of the message of the bible--and if this same message is true as understood by millions of believers today, then the evolution theory cannot be true as it is.
Blind men of Indostan
