Relevance of Six-Day Creation

Is it adequate simply to "believe in creaton," or is there some value in embracing the specific details recorded in Genesis 1-2? I am a Young Earth Creationist (YEC), which some consider the more remarkable given my chemistry background, interest in amateur astronomy, study of formal logic, and authorship of several science fiction novels (not silly end times nonsense, but real SF, set far in the future and showing the church alive and well).

The Bible teaches that the universe is about 6000 years old. Scientific observation shows that the Earth appears to be about 4.5 billion years old, while the universe as a whole appears to be about 14 billions years old. One can quibble on these numbers a bit, but it is obvious that we are dealing with two radically different views of the world.

Thus the many efforts to reconcile Genesis 1-2 with the competing conclusions reached by modern scientists. Some Christians question the literal interpretation of Genesis 1, preferring to think of the word "day" as symbolically referring to long periods of time. Other Christians attack the methods and interpretive paradigms of modern scientists, asserting that perhaps the universe does not really appear to be that old after all.

Although this post is not intended to defend my own attempt at reconciliation, let me say in passing that I believe God has made a young universe that appears old. This is the "appearance of age" theory, and it has many detractors. Let me suggest, however, that unlike all the tortured treatments of Genesis 1, the "appearance of age" theory does flow naturally out of the text. On the day they are created, Adam and Eve are clearly portrayed as looking older than they really are (they have adult bodies, not infant bodies). But more on this another time.

What I'm really interested in discussing here is why the whole topic matters. Some of us have a natural aversion to controversy (not always a bad thing), and the issue of the earth's age can needlessly divide and distract the church (aren't there much more important matters worthy of our time and energy?). Nevertheless, I would be so bold as to assert that the age of the earth actually matters. The issue is relevant, in other words. Please allow me to explain why.

The Doctrine of Original Sin teaches the following:
1) God made a world that was very good, a world very unlike the one we now inhabit.
2) Adam sinned against God, resulting in negative consequences for the creation in general and mankind in particular.
3) As a result of Adam's sin, all humans descending from him (by ordinary generation) inherit a sin nature - we are sinful from the moment of conception.
4) Because Adam carried the office of Federal Head for humanity, the guilt of Adam's first sin is credited or imputed to the whole human race. This means God considers all people guilty of Adam's first transgression.
5) Adam was not only head of the human race; God made him king over the entire physical creation. When Adam fell, the creation fell with him. Death and decay entered the world. The creation is now in bondage to decay, and awaits the day when it will be redeemd and transformed.

The key idea I'd like you to focus on is this: the world as we see it now, as we experience it now - this is not the way God made the world. The pre-Fall world was radically different. A world without decay. A world without death. Given how all physical processes in this world are governed by entropy increases, it is frankly impossilbe for us to even imagine what the pre-Fall world was really like. But the key idea is that it was nothing like this world.

Why is the current world so horrible? Because we screwed it up. God made it very good. We rebelled. God is now keeping his promise: the day you eat of it, you shall surely die.

It is essential to guard this Doctrine of Original Sin, that all the blame for the world being the way it is stays where it belongs: on our shoulders. God did not make the world this way. It is our fault that the world is the way it is.

Now this is why the age of the earth matters. It seems to me that the idea of the earth being 4.5 billion years old is linked pretty tightly with the idea that the world has always been as we see it now. A world governed by death and decay. A world that has experienced no radical discontinuity between the way things are (meaning the basic physical laws of the universe) and the way things were.

For example, let's examine a layer of sedimentary rock full of fossils. Fossils = death. If you claim that the layer of rock of 300 million years old, then you are claiming that death has been around for at least that long (i.e., long before Adam and Eve showed up on the scene). Then the presence of death and decay is no longer Adam's fault. It is God's fault. The world is the way it is because God is a lousy Creator.

So far from being some secondary issue best shunted to the side for the sake of unity, the age of the earth actually finds itself inextricably bound up with the core Doctrine of Original Sin. This is not a secondary matter. It is, rather, the very issue of blame bantered back and forth in Genesis 3. Who is to blame for the world's fallen condition? (This planet is a horrible place. If you think otherwise, just give it a little time.)

According to Genesis 3, Adam (and by extension, the whole human race) is to blame for the world being the way it is. Before Adam sinned, the world was not like this. We need to guard this piece of the Biblical worldview, for what is at stake is not only God's reputation as a good and wise Creator, but also the sufficiency of Christ's redemptive work. For only if the sin of the First Adam is the cause of everything wrong in the world, only then is the obedience of the Last Adam the solution for everything wrong in the world.

Those fossils can't be older than Adam, because before Adam there was no sin, no death, no decay, no disaster - none of the stuff that today produces dirt full of dead animals.

Guard the Doctrine of Original Sin.