It’s repulsive. Ridiculous (something that will cause others to ridicule you and not just the idea, 1 Cor 1:27 style). Completely inexcusable in our modern scientific society. It will make the philosopher in you shudder.

But could it be true?

I’m talking about apparent age, the omphalos hypothesis, Last Thursdayism.

Two years ago I was a sceptic, but since then I’ve become fully convinced of it’s truth. What convinced me was a paper by a friend of mine.

What do you think?
How might this shape our understanding of the Bible and theology?
What does this mean for all those silly creationists?

Here are some other resources on the topic:
Wikipedia
Links and summaries of many positions
Positions of Ken Ham and Henry Morris, two key creationists

Hey Dannii

This theory, like all others, is based on a certain set of presuppositions and its purpose is to explain the evidence before the eyes of the beholder.

I think the primary presupposition is that the world is just 6000 years or so old as per Bishop Ussher.

Its primary metaphore is based on the proposition that If God created an oak tree in a moment of creation, its trunk would have many age rings, not just one. 

It’s a simplistic response to a very complex issue.

For many Bible-believing Christians it is not necessary to invent such theories that fly in the face of the scientific evidence we have accumulated over the years.  It is, in my view, no different from the attempt Charles Darwin made to try and explain the small movements in species type such as occurs among rosellas along the east coast of Australia - their colours change in a spectrum from yellow to deep red, and each can interbreed except the yellow and the deep red - the variation has become too great.  The ability to interbreed is a basis of the definition of a single species, yet the yellow and red rosellas now seem to be different species.  IT’S A THEORY!!!

I for one completely reject the young earth theory and all the convoluted theories that Christians have created to try and maintain it.

I think the primary presupposition is that the world is just 6000 years or so old as per Bishop Ussher.

Its primary metaphore is based on the proposition that If God created an oak tree in a moment of creation, its trunk would have many age rings, not just one.

It’s a simplistic response to a very complex issue.

No I don’t think the primary presupposition is that the earth is young. The theory is essential for however old the universe is. It says that however old it may be, it will look even older.

Causal coherance is also not what I’d call simplistic.

For many Bible-believing Christians it is not necessary to invent such theories that fly in the face of the scientific evidence we have accumulated over the years.

This theory doesn’t fly in the face of any sicentific evidence. Whatever the evidence suggests will fit in perfectly, except that it won’t have happened. Doesn’t it make you cringe? :)

I for one completely reject the young earth theory and all the convoluted theories that Christians have created to try and maintain it.

Okay then… what does this theory mean in an old-earth framework?

My brief reading of the article by your friend seems to be a gloat over a philosophical proposition that both supports a presupposition of a young earth while not discarding scientific evidence. 

What sank in of what I read does make me cringe because it appears to support something it clearly does not agree with - like the proposition can’t be disproved, therefore it must be right.

What is wrong with allowing that the world is just what it appears to be, so far as the scientific evidence goes?  Your friends can’t allow this because they fundamentally distrust science - it denies the existence of God is my guess at the reason - and yet they put forward a proposition that purports to allow the veracity of science.

The theory is based, as best I can see it, on a philosophical proposition rather than any empirical evidence.  Until it can demonstrate a substantial basis in empirical evidence then it does nothing to the old-earth framework.

Hi Dannii
I briefly glanced the article but I can’t say I understand the argument the writers put forward to any depth. Though my current position is that the age of the earth doesn’t really matter (as whether you have billions of years or just a few thousand, either way the time available is far far too little to explain the complexity of life on earth except by design), I am sympathetic to a young earth viewpoint coz that is how Genesis reads to me on face value (but also accept that there are different ways one can read it). To me it is logically possible that God could have created life with the appearance of age, but the question to me would be why. Did Adam have a belly button for example? I can’t see why he would have. God is more into substance than appearance I reckon. Given that a belly button is a scar that results from a natural birth it would seem a bit strange to me for God to give Adam such a scar. And regarding the question of whether the first trees had rings, I imagine any answers to this question are rather speculative (given the lack of evidence regarding these first trees). Interesting idea though.

regards

The face-value reading of Genesis also proposes a flat earth - are you going to go with that?

What is wrong with allowing that the world is just what it appears to be, so far as the scientific evidence goes?  Your friends can’t allow this because they fundamentally distrust science - it denies the existence of God is my guess at the reason - and yet they put forward a proposition that purports to allow the veracity of science.

I don’t have friends that distrust science, though some may question what science can legitimately tell us about the past…

The theory is based, as best I can see it, on a philosophical proposition rather than any empirical evidence.  Until it can demonstrate a substantial basis in empirical evidence then it does nothing to the old-earth framework.

Actually the entire theory is based upon the first law of thermodynamics, that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Even God himself could not create any matter or energy that didn’t appear to have been there before he created it. If God had created nothing but a single electron it would appear as if the electron had always existed and had been travelling in a straight line at constant speed forever - it would be impossible for it to look like it had just been created. The only way that we could know the nature of that electron’s beginning would be for God to tell us.

If you expand the scale, say to the universe, there are only two options: either it would look like the universe had been here forever, or it would look like it came from a singularity. God couldn’t create a universe that didn’t look like either of those (and the always existing universe might not be a real possibility either...). And again the only way for us to know the true nature of the universe’s beginning would be for him to tell us what he did.

Derek, I don’t know the answer for specific examples either. I think my friend Josh would argue both that Adam had a belly-button and the trees would have rings. But it could be argued the other way, the question is which would be most causally consistent.

Perhaps a more interesting example is with fossils. The cycle of life and decomposition is essential and God must have created the world with one. Now I don’t believe that animals died before the fall, so maybe the cycle consisted only of the death of insects and plant life. But what about in the apparent history of the world God created… should the decomposition cycle be present? If so, what would it look like?

Note that its largely academic… as a result of the flood we wouldn’t see any of the original rock, I believe the fossils we see today are all real fossils of dead animals killed in the flood.

The face-value reading of Genesis also proposes a flat earth - are you going to go with that?

I think you’re confusing a face-value, literal, historical-grammatico interpretation with a literalistic reading.

Now a further question, are there any Bible verses that support or prohibit this theory? Opponents of this theory have said it would make God a liar, but I think Josh’s article deals with that successfully. Are there any other problems?

Actually the entire theory is based upon the first law of thermodynamics, that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Even God himself could not create any matter or energy that didn’t appear to have been there before he created it.

I’m not sure I follow the logic here. It seems to me it is more people’s presuppositions that cause them to believe material things were always here.

If God had created nothing but a single electron it would appear as if the electron had always existed and had been travelling in a straight line at constant speed forever - it would be impossible for it to look like it had just been created. The only way that we could know the nature of that electron’s beginning would be for God to tell us.

I think there is a bit of a difference between the creation of a electron that “appears” to have always been moving (because there seems to be no other logical way of doing it) and the creation of (arbitrary) belly buttons or tree rings on first people or trees.

rgds

I’m not sure I follow the logic here. It seems to me it is more people’s presuppositions that cause them to believe material things were always here.

It’s part of rules God made for this universe. I suppose he could have made a universe without the laws of thermodynamics, but that would be a strange one indeed.
We’re creatures of this universe, and so anything he does will appear to us to fit under the laws of thermodynamics. These laws are some of most strongly attested, there’s absolutely no scientific explanation that goes contrary to them. God can of course break them whenever he likes, but when he does so, to us it will still appear as if the rules had been followed.

I think there is a bit of a difference between the creation of a electron that “appears” to have always been moving (because there seems to be no other logical way of doing it) and the creation of (arbitrary) belly buttons or tree rings on first people or trees.

Indeed. This is where causal coherence comes in. The most causally consistent history for an electron is that it’s just been moving the same way forever. What’s the most causally consistent history for a person or tree? That’s up for debate.

Although it’s up for debate I don’t think it would be wise to spend too much time on it, as it will always be theoretical. I think this theory is of more use because it can break down the alleged war between science and religion, if only people are willing to believe something that’s so completely unscientific.

The recent origins stuff has been thrown around by both sides of this debate. I have heard it used as a tongue in cheek dig at YECS, ie; arguing that the Earth is indeed only ten minutes old and that all apparent memories and evidence are in fact illusions.
In fact, I woulds have to assume (and it is arguably an assumption) that God is a God of truth and He doesn’t lie. If the evidence, geological and astronomical, genetic and ... well whatever, points unanimously to and old earth then old it is.
If we assume otherwise then we have a Trickster God, like Loki of the Aesir, who was regularly up to deception in a big way. Such a God is not the same yesterday, today and forever. He would be beyond trust, therefore faith in Him would be dodgy and the choice of fools.
If stars are millions of light years away then they are millions of years old. Or God likes to deceive.
If genetics points to common ancestry, then we have, in all likelihood, common ancestors (I am talking across species here!)
If geological forms indicate ancient earth, then the earth is ancient, or the Creator is Loki or someone similar and it is time to become an atheist or a Buddhist (who are largely indifferent to the creation agenda).

No, I will remain a Christian and reject the God the deceiver/ trickster line, and its companion convolutions at rationalising away apparent age in favour of a young earth.

How is God a trickster if he’s told us how he made the universe? For him to be a trickster you must value ‘scientific’ evidence above his word.

This theory says that by looking at the universe it’s impossible to tell what is real history and what is ‘false’ history. The only way for us to know what happened is for God to tell us. To argue otherwise is to deny the first law of thermodynamics.

How is God a trickster if he’s told us how he made the universe? For him to be a trickster you must value ‘scientific’ evidence above his word.

Presupposition: “he’s told us how he made the universe’. I can see how the conflicting Genesis stories describe why he made the universe. I can see that they state that He made the universe. I cannot see the “how”. and I do value evidence rather highly. I can see stars! They are millions of light years away and I can see them! We have seen suns at these distances die! If they died before ever being made then God is clearly up to tricks.

This theory says that by looking at the universe it’s impossible to tell what is real history and what is ‘false’ history.

Then it is a load of tosh innit? We are left to no evidence but the Bible. Then we are left to fight out or sort through the myriad theological positions. I’d opt for “all history is fale, but the degree to its being false varies according to the evidence available.
This applies to the Bible too. As Enkers has pointed out elsewhere, our understanding of the Bible is accurate to the degree that it is in agreement with the context in which it was written. If history is to become completely suspect then we rapidly lose the Bible… so what do we rely on then?
The assertion of this theory might be well meaning but it is self destructive resulting from the means of proving its intent!

No Dannii,
the reality that I will describe in my paper, “Why God and Coyote are so similar”, is that God, being the trickster that He is, actually created us 4 nano-seconds after you read my paper (in the future) and that all this is just a dream-memory that God will implant at that moment.

We have seen suns at these distances die! If they died before ever being made then God is clearly up to tricks.

Woah....

Mr Atkins, Mr Atkins, may I be excused?
My brain is full!!

Presupposition: “he’s told us how he made the universe’. I can see how the conflicting Genesis stories describe why he made the universe. I can see that they state that He made the universe. I cannot see the “how”. and I do value evidence rather highly. I can see stars! They are millions of light years away and I can see them! We have seen suns at these distances die! If they died before ever being made then God is clearly up to tricks.

What does Gen 1 simply say? Only that God made lights in the sky to mark seasons and days and years, to give light on the earth, and that he made the greater and lesser lights, and the stars. What does the Hebrew word for star, kowkab, actually mean? I’m not sure, but by doing a bit of quick research it’s quite likely that it referred to both planets and comets as well as stars as we know them. Could the word simply refer to any lights in the sky, including supernova too? Indeed, they do the purpose well for we can date events historically by supernovas…
If the Hebrew doesn’t truly refer to giant burning balls of hydrogen, then I think it would be quite possible for God to create the images of dieing stars without in any way being dishonest.

Then it is a load of tosh innit? We are left to no evidence but the Bible. Then we are left to fight out or sort through the myriad theological positions.

Wouldn’t that just be horrid… having to rely on God alone to know what God has done.

No Dannii,
the reality that I will describe in my paper, “Why God and Coyote are so similar”, is that God, being the trickster that He is, actually created us 4 nano-seconds after you read my paper (in the future) and that all this is just a dream-memory that God will implant at that moment.

That’s a possibility. But like you, I too believe the Bible is God’s true message to us. He didn’t make the universe 4 nano-seconds ago.

This fascinating question applies to much more than just creation 6000 years ago (which I believe).  It applies to every single truly supernatural event of history recorded in the Bible.

39 years ago I heard Broughton Knox ask this question in a doctrine lecture: “12 baskets of fragments were gathered after Jesus fed 5000 with five loaves and 2 fish.  What would a scientist say was the history of the fragments? “
He would have to say “Cooked yesterday from grain harvested weeks ago.” (or similar.)
Yet they were supernaturally created only minutes before, out of nothing!!

What about the wine at the wedding?  the body of Lazarus?  etc.

Broughton Knox was a very clever man, and I believe a young earth creationist. He liked to recommend Louis Berkhof’s “Systematic Theology” . I treasure my copy.  Berkhof was another very clever and amazingly learned theologian who was a young earth creationist.