The Christian Chiropractor Commentary

Age and Evolution – How Old Is The Universe and Where Did We Come From

There is controversy in the Christian world that I have seen divide Christian from Christian.  I have seen one Christian tell another he is not a true Christian due to conflicting opinions on this topic.  The non-believer looks from the outside and sees a faith at odds with itself.  Perhaps worse, it sees a faith with many members who essentially deny the observations of science, and therefore, the entire scientific method.  I believe this is driving our young adults, particularly those entering into the field of science, to leave the faith if they were raised in it, and for those raised outside the faith, to give it no consideration what-so-ever.  From a purely salvation perspective, these are lost souls.  But from a human perspective, we live in a time when hope is in short supply, and who is more able to provide hope to the hopeless than Jesus Christ?  What is this controversy?  It is the age of the universe and the role evolution plays in the creation story.

                All historic Christians share the same basic beliefs on the primary issues of salvation; that Christ is fully God and fully human; that he died for our sins and was resurrected on the 3^rd day; that salvation is available to each person by faith through the grace of God, since none of us can earn it.  These tenets go back to the Apostles Creed, or what C.S. Lewis might call Mere Christianity.  The issues of this article are secondary theology, but are deeply divisive none-the-less.  On the one hand we have a large portion of what is largely the American Evangelical movement of the past 100 years that hold to the interpretation that the universe is young, perhaps 6,000 to 10,000 years old, and that God created man from scratch, as opposed to man evolving from primordial creatures.  This secondary theology has become a Christian hill to die on for many of these believers. 

                If we look at these two intertwining topics individually, we will see three possible schools of thought; young earth/creationism, old earth/creationism, and old earth/evolutionism.  I suppose that there could be a fourth school of thought, young earth/evolutionism, but that would just be silly.  With three possible viewpoints there are three well known organizations representing these divergent beliefs.  The first group, young earth/creationism is represented by the organization Answers In Genesis, led by Ken Ham.  The second group, old earth/creationism, is represented by Reasons To Believe, led by Hugh Ross.  The third, old earth/evolutionary creationism (theistic evolution, intelligent design (ID)), would be the position held by the folks at Biologos, led by Debby Haarsma.  It would be inaccurate, presumptuous, and may I say ignorant to suggest that any of these three very bright and dedicated people and their supporters were anything less than good and devoted Christians, as some factions would imply.    

                When pondering this I am reminded of the 1600’s Catholic church.  Galileo Galilei had two very significant ideas, both of which were considered heresy by the Catholic Church.  The first was the idea that the earth was not at the center of the universe.  The second idea stemmed from his deep belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and also that the universe was also the work and truth of God.  He wrote that when the observations of the natural world (what we now might call God’s general revelation) do not match the Bible (God’s special revelation), that it is not the Bible nor nature that are wrong, but our interpretation of one or the other.  As he was able to demonstrate beyond scientific doubt that Earth revolves around the sun, his conclusion was that our interpretation of scripture was wrong, that Earth was not the center of the universe.  The Church did not take kindly to Galileo’s ideas thereby threatening to excommunicate him, which in his day meant no recognition, no income, starvation.  Looking back, it was perhaps during this era that we first learned that while the Bible may be the inerrant inspired word of God, it is still flawed men that read, interpret, and teach its content.

                Also in the 1600’s, one Reverend James Ussher thought he could calculate the age of the universe or at least the earth by using the genealogies from the Old Testament.  His work concluded that the universe is 6,000 to 10,000 years old.  Today, we find this idea in direct conflict with the continuing observations by science that the universe is some 13.8 billion years old, that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old, that microbial life has been on this planet for perhaps 3.2 billion years and that humans have existed for somewhere between 50,000 and 150,000 years.  So I ask, do we have yet another interpretation problem?

                This controversy rests largely on the literal meaning of the word ‘day’ in Genesis.  To find its meaning we must read each and every creation reference not only in Genesis, but also in Job and Psalms.  When we do it comes down to this.  The ancient Hebrew word we translate as day is Yom.  There were perhaps only 30,000 words of ancient Hebrew, far fewer than the 171,000 or so in today’s English.  So context was critical.  Yom had four translational meanings: 1) a 24 hour period, 2) part of the daylight hours, 3) all of the daylight hours, 4) a long but finite period of time.  The only one that fits all of the Biblical references is #4, a long but finite period of time.  Historically, early Christian theologians used definition #4 as the operant definition.  Jewish scholars largely felt similarly.  But since the time of Ussher the trend has been toward embracing #1, again most particularly in the American evangelical community. 

                Ussher’s interpretation assumed definition #1, a 24 hour period.  He also assumed that the genealogies listed every descendent from Adam to David, David to Christ.  Other theologians argue that the list probably represents on average every 14^th descendent, thereby only listing important names in history.  We see here another limitation in ancient Hebrew.  The Hebrew word we translate as ‘begat’ would include father/son descendants but also grandfather/grandson and uncle/nephew, and could also span over large generational gaps.  It is my understanding that the primary purpose of these genealogies is not to show every name, but to show the link between Adam and David, and later, David to Jesus.  To use them as a chronometer, as tried by Reverend Ussher, does not appear, according to these theologians, possible.  It is perhaps another example of poor biblical interpretation.    

                So here we are in another interpretation gap.  Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis argues the young earth stance, but to do so requires not merely redefining many observations/conclusions of science, but scrapping much of the scientific method.  The historical speed of light, atomic decay rates, the expansion of the universe, the big bang theory, the age of the dinosaurs, tectonic history, size history of the sun, and many other scientific observations/conclusions don’t fit into his interpretation.  Mr. Ham is married to his interpretation, much like the Catholic church in the time of Galileo.  “It can’t be so because (our interpretation of) the Bible says it’s not so.”

                My daughter is a devoted Christian and a Ph.D. scientist.  The vast majority of her scientist associates are atheists or agnostic, as are most scientists in general I think.  If I were to put myself in their shoes, and if I were to believe in the observations of science, and if the Christian religion I hear of means that I have to question many known “facts” of my professional life, how could I ever embrace such a religion.  If I’m a cosmologist and I know that assumption-free measurements I have made of the size of the universe tell me that it is 13.8 billion years old, how could I ever attend a church, let alone embrace a faith, that says that it is only 6,000 years old?  For me as a committed Christian, this is a soul lost to eternity, over what I argue is nothing more than poor interpretation.    

                This is one example of why I think interpretation is critical.  Souls are being lost due to interpretation.  Personally, I embrace the work of Reasons to Believe (RTB) regarding the age of the universe.  And I well understand their position on creationism versus evolutionary-creationism as supported by Biologos.  I might suggest Hugh Ross’ book Navigating Genesis as a sound discussion on the subject.  But he argues that if you use definition #4 (a long but finite period of time), and you read Genesis from the correct perspective, that all the Bible’s creation stories not only fit with each other, but fit with the observations of science, including the Big Bang Theory.  In fact the Bible becomes the oldest text and the only religious text to accurately describe the formation of our solar system and planet, the establishment of the water cycle, the creation of continents, and the proper order of introduction of plants, sea animals, land animals, and finally man.  From where I sit, an old earth fits perfectly with the Bible.   

                This leaves us on evolution’s doorstep.  This word is far too poorly understood by the lay-community.  We talk about evolution as if it’s one thing when in fact there are five types of evolution.  I have never heard this in the popular media or in any religious discussion, but this understanding is paramount to moving forward.  Let me go through the five sub-types of evolution.    

                Chemical Evolution.  This is the description of the process of life evolving from non-life, a sort of primordial soup of chemicals that combined into proto-life chemistry, then RNA-based life, and finally, into DNA-based bacteria and archaea.  I am skeptical of this form of evolution.  It would require a designer, a technician and a well-funded lab, aka God.  I would refer you to “Creating Life in the Lab” by Fuzale Rana for greater discussion of this.  Laboratories are working right now trying to create life from scratch, and will probably succeed in the coming years.  But as they succeed in this and show how life can evolve from lifelessness, they will miss the irony that it took a designer, a host of technicians, meticulously controlled environments, and a well-funded lab to pull it off.    

                Microbial Evolution.  This absolutely happens.  Viruses and bacteria evolve all the time to become more virulent.  Bacteria share genes back and forth and evolve constantly.  This is the entire basis of antibiotic resistance and is beyond debate.  More recently we see this in the novel Corona Virus of 2020.       

                Micro-evolution.  This also happens.  The Peppered Moth in England was a white moth with black spots but as soot from coal burning began to cover the birch forests, which is the native habitat for the moth, birds found it easier to prey upon the white moths.  Predation selected for the blacker moths and soon the entire population was composted of black moths with white spots.  Once coal burning was cleaned up, the birch trees quickly washed off and slowly the white moths prevailed and today they are the original peppered moth as in yesteryear.  This is a perfect example of natural selection as described by Darwin.  All organisms evolve to a greater or lesser degree to their environment.   

                Speciation.  Again, this also happens.  The classic example is the Galapagos Finch.  Geographic separation, food competition, and sexual selection led to the evolution of a sister species of Finch with a larger beak size than the original homogenous population.  They are today distinct but related species.  Unlike the Peppered Moth which was a reversible process, in this case the daughter population evolved new traits such that the two populations would be considered different species.  As a side note, the definition of the word ‘species’ is subject to great debate for which there is no universal consensus.  

                These last three types of evolution pose no threat to the Christian faith.  Rather they demonstrate the elegant design of living systems that can adapt and change to an ever-changing environment.  When species fail at this they become extinct.  So microbial and micro evolution with speciation argue strongly for a very gifted designer.     

                Macro-evolution.  This is the evolution that many Christians mean to question and the type of evolution that naturalists refer to in the development of humankind.  This is the type of evolution that leads these same naturalists to state that humans are millions of years old while archeology only finds evidence of modern man dating back tens of thousands of years.  Humans to the naturalist include not only modern humans, you and I, but also the assumed progenitor species of hominids.  Their concept is that natural selection will drive a process such that wholly unrelated species will evolve from another species given enough time and environmental pressures.  Man from hominid, bird from dinosaur, everything from some single-celled progenitor a bacteria or archaea.  Sadly for the naturalist, every time there has been a new fossil discovery of late, it muddies their evolutionary family tree rather than clarifying it.  Naturalists look at the data assuming that supernatural events simply cannot happen and try to fit it into a pattern of less to most sophisticated.  Grossly oversimplifying their argument, the Biologos folks essentially embrace the naturalist’s interpretation of the data but argue that God orchestrated it by reaching in from time to time tweaking this and that.

                While Biologos and Reasons to Believe both agree upon the age of the universe, Reasons to Believe holds with Answers In Genesis in that God simply created new species from scratch.  The book of Genesis supports this latter position as opposed to some sort of guided evolutionary process.  For example, the ancient Hebrew word used for the creation of Adam means ex nihilo, from nothing, while the word for the creation of Eve describes a reshaping process, essentially the taking of a biopsy from Adam and refashioning it.  So there is a textual distinction that the Biologos folks would have to argue away.

                This gets back to interpretation.  Many American evangelicals argue young earth/creationism, and some have arrogantly said you can’t be a real Christian if you believe in an old earth or in macro-evolution.  Interestingly, the Anglican church argues old earth/evolution as evidenced by the altar dedicated to Darwin in Westminster Abbey.  Biologos and Reasons to Believe argue old earth/ID and old earth/creationism respectively.  In the end I would restate my opinion that none of this has anything to do with salvation, or with being a “Christian.”  However, it most certainly impacts inclusion.  It impacts who is coming to Christ and who is being chased or pushed away.  It creates doubt as to whether we should trust the Bible or trust science, when I think we must trust both since God created the Bible just as he created the totality of nature that science studies.  The Bible states that God never lies or deceives.  It also states that the laws of physics never change.  When it comes to non-salvation second tier theological issues I side with Galileo, I choose the interpretation that best aligns what we read with what we observe, that is scripturally sound, and brings the most souls to God.  Therefore, I see young earth proponents as the well-meaning self-anointed keepers of Biblical misinterpretation, who are so devoted to their misinterpretation that they see 21^st century science as a threat to their church and their faith.  Rather than rereading their Bible, rather than making a superficial study of ancient Hebrew, rather than questioning their own interpretation, they reimagine science to an unbelievable degree.  In doing so they are helping to drive scientists, who make an exponentially-growing percentage of Earth’s population, to agnosticism, atheism, spiritualism, animism, humanism, and ultimately to an eternity of separation from our Creator, God.  In my view we are in the 1600’s all over again, only instead of the Catholic church it is my own American Evangelical church and instead of one man, Galileo, it is much if not most of the scientific community.