I feel that the question of the age of the earth has become much more caustic in recent years. This debate has been increasingly polarized with each camp thinking the absolute worst of the other. But how important is such a debate anyway? I would contend that the earth’s age is not all that important as Christians who firmly reject natural evolution are to be found on both sides of that question.

Recently this debate was again brought to our attention through a pair of high profile blog posts. Justin Taylor (Senior VP and Publisher at Crossway), whose blog is hosted by The Gospel Coalition, shared the following post: “Biblical Reasons to Doubt the Creation Days Were 24-Hour Periods.” This post was not well accepted by young earth creationists such as Ken Ham. Ham came out with a strongly worded response: “Rejecting Six Literal Days — What’s the Real Motivation?” Now, never mind that just a couple days prior, Taylor had shared “5 Scientific Problems with Current Theories of Biological and Chemical Evoluion.” Poor guy, he is getting flak from both sides of the creation science debate!

As I read Ham’s title and then his blog post, I first bristled at his willingness to read Taylor’s motives. Is not grappling with the text important, whether or not modern science pulls us one way or another? Here is a sampling of Ham’s reasoning:

I have found over and over again that because of the outside influence from the secular world in regard to an old earth/universe… many… will try to reinterpret the days of creation, or somehow allow for long ages somewhere in Genesis 1… to justify meshing Genesis with what is claimed to be “science.” Of course, when the word science is used in relation to the age of the earth/universe, we are dealing with historical science (beliefs based on fallible assumptions) not observational science (the kind of science that builds technology).

I am prepared to go out on a limb, on the basis of my experience in the biblical creation apologetics ministry and of all I’ve read over the past 40+ years, to say this. When Christian leaders today are rejecting a dogmatic stand on six literal, 24-hour days of creation and a young earth, if you search their writings or question them, you will find that ultimately their thinking is being controlled by the belief in an old earth/universe (billions of years)…. You simply do not get the idea of millions or billions of years from Scripture—it comes from outside of Scripture….

And thus I am saying the age of the earth/universe comes down to an authority issue.

On second thought, Ham might be right. At the root of attempts to re-examine Genesis stands the scientific discovery that the earth is unimaginably old. But ultimatley, we must ask, is it wrong to examine afresh our interpretation of Scripture in light of science? I would argue no, and I believe Ham himself is guilty of the same thing.

I’m talking about geocentrism – the idea that the earth is at the center of the universe. This was the Christian interpretation of the world prior to Copernicus’ revolution. Even the early Reformers did not countenance a rejection of this view. I just shared a review of a Christian scholar from the 1960s who still held to a preference for geocentrism even then. And some conservative Christian professors today still argue for such a view.

Science is clear, and the observations shows that the earth is not the center of the universe, and looking at Scripture in a fresh light, the church came to agree that phenomenological language does not constitute an assertion that the earth actually has 4 corners, and is fixed on pillars, with the sun going on a journey around the immobile earth each day.

Ham tries to quibble over the science behind an old earth by claiming that such science is not observational – but this is to turn science on its head. Much of the science that gives us techonology is not strictly observational, but based on observations which reinforce interpretations based on an examination of the evidence. And there are scientific tests done with carbon-14 and a host of other elements, that all agree. Blind tests with controls. Ham and many dispute the validity of such tests but have yet to come up with alternative tests that consistently (with similar controls) demonstrate a young age for the earth. These tests done by modern science converge with astronomical observations and learnings from astrophysics. At the very least many creation scientists would claim that the earth has an appearance of age. Doesn’t Answers in Genesis spend a lot of time grappling over the question of distant starlight?

Rejecting a young earth is not necessarily a matter of authority. The Scripture has authority, we all agree. The question is what does the text actually say. To go back to Taylor’s post, this really is an interpretational issue. There are clues in the text that today’s widespread Christian interpretation about the age of the earth may be in error. This would be similar to the widespread views of Christians in the 1600s being wrong about the position of the earth. Is it wrong to look anew at our interpretations and the Ancient Near Eastern evidence of Genesis 1-3 being of a particular genre. Could not some of the arguments Taylor offers be an honest grappling with the text in light of the influence of science and history.

Bending on our interpretation, reexamining the evidence — these actions do not prove one is abandoning biblical authority and embracing natural evolutionary science. Taylor himself gives us 5 reasons to doubt the current state of evolutionary theory. Instead these actions are incumbent on faithful Christian leaders. We need to make sure our interpretation is firmly grounded in the text. A lot is at stake in getting this right. Let’s make sure we die on the proper hill.

Some have examined the evidence afresh and have come away with a stronger position for a young earth. Don’t look at those who disagree with you and criticize them for examining the evidence too. We all are trying to grapple with science and our interpretation of Scripture. Where we disagree, lets do so charitably and with recognition that this isn’t an authority issue. Both sides uphold the authority of the text. We are all trying to make sure our interpretation is sound.