This is a touchy subject, so let me be clear about a few things right up front:
First, I don’t ridicule Young Earth Creationists. As I described in my blog entry on epistemology, I acknowledge the possibility that Hinduism or even atheism might be true. I hold Christian convictions, not Christian certainty. So I acknowledge the possibility that the heavens and the earth might have been created in six literal days some 6,500 years ago (or thereabouts).
Second, even if Young Earth Creationism is as wildly off-base as most scientists believe it to be, Young Earth Creationists may nevertheless be wonderful Christians who will be receiving rewards in heaven far exceeding mine. What one believes about the age of creation isn't a Christian essential in my mind.
Third, Young Earth Creationism is barely on my radar screen. It wouldn’t be there at all if it weren’t so prevalent within evangelical Christianity. I’m not talking only about high-profile proponents like Ken Ham and Ray Comfort. No, it seems as though almost every preacher, pastor and host on the Christian radio stations to which I listen feels compelled to plant his or her flag in Young Earth Creationism. It's become some sort of litmus test as to whether you are a Bible-believing Christian (or a Christian at all).
I first encountered the Young Earth position more than 50 years ago, when I was a newly-minted Christian and a student member of Campus Crusade for Christ. A Crusade staff member named Frank explained how the earth had been surrounded by a mist that caused modern carbon dating to be way off and that the earth was actually only a few thousand years old. I had no idea anyone believed or could possibly believe such a thing.
My position is simply that I believe the ages of the universe and the earth have been established by multiple disciplines of science to a level of scientific certainty. The universe and the earth are billions of years old, not thousands. The science may be off by a few hundred thousand years, but not by billions - and any error is likely to be in the direction of even greater age.
I hasten to add, I am not a slave to science. At a young age, I had intuitive concerns about Darwinian evolutionary theory that I learned decades later are, in fact, some of the key scientific objections to evolutionary theory. If evolutionary theory is ever established to the same level of scientific certainty as the ages of the universe and the earth, I'll be a theistic evolutionist. As of now, however, I'm not a six-day creationist but do suspect that evolutionary theory is deeply flawed. The criticisms of the Intelligent Design movement, in which I am thoroughly steeped, seem cogent and compelling to me.
My belief is that God created a universe that operates according to orderly laws and principles and created humans with minds and senses uncannily suited to investigating and analyzing those laws and principles. What we are discovering is what God intended for us to discover (because the heavens proclaim His glory) and our efforts are pleasing to Him. I don't believe God created all this as a test of faith as to whether we would believe His Word or our lying eyes.
I see nothing in Genesis that requires a literal six-day creation or a young one. One can certainly read Genesis this way, but I see no reason to do so unless one is wedded to an extremely wooden, literal reading of Scripture. I'm always impressed that Genesis, in comparison to other ancient creation accounts, describes an orderly, sequential, almost modern account of the creation process - but I don't believe it's a scientific treatise.
While I don't ridicule Young Earth Creationists, I often hear them suggest that anyone who is not a Young Earth Creationist "isn't a biblical Christian" (or perhaps not a Christian at all). In other words, in their minds their exceedingly literal view of Scripture is what defines a real Christian. They apparently believe that holding fast to Young Earth Creationism in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary is somehow pleasing to God. (Somewhat incongruously, however, they also promote their own Young Earth "science.")
It seems to me that a Young Earth Christian must live in a state of cognitive dissonance. Not only science but one's own observations and common sense tell you that Young Earth Creationism can't be true unless God is engaged in a massive fraud. I live near the Grand Canyon: visit it and tell me it was created a few thousand years ago. Indeed, I used to insist Young Earth Creationism is a pretend doctrine – i.e., no sane and intelligent person really believes it, but those who assert it pretend to believe it because they think even pretend faithfulness is pleasing to God.
There is one version, however, that is interesting, consistent with science and impossible to refute. If I were inclined toward Young Earth Creationism, this might be my landing spot.
When you pick up a novel – one of Charles Dickens', for example – you enter into a world that is fully formed. You know nothing about the histories of the places and people you encounter. Cities and the buildings in them are old. The people are adults. The same, the theory goes, with the universe and the earth. When humans were created, they were placed into a creation "novel" that God had authored with every appearance of great age. So the science that points toward great age is ontologically incorrect but entirely consistent with God's "novel."
A related view is that the Bible reflects two perspectives: One is God's, one is that of the first humans. The creation may actually be ancient, but the Young Earth perspective is that of the first humans who were placed into it at a much later date. (As late as 20,000 to 6,000 BCE, according to the scientifically sound theory of Professor Joshua Swamidass, whereby Adam and Eve were the "genealogical" ancestors of all humans living at the time of Christ and today. See Amazon.com.)
It's fascinating stuff, but insofar as the ages of the universe and earth are concerned I go with modern science and a respectful but non-literal and non-scientific understanding of Genesis. The issue seems theologically significant only to those who insist an exceedingly literal (and, I believe, artificial) reading of Genesis is essential to being a Bible-believing Christian.
