Posts Tagged With: Adam and Eve

The Universe Is 29 Years Young

A new map shows the oldest light in our universe, as detected with the precision by the Planck mission. Image by ESA and the Planck Collaboration.

When the thirty-something women I know lament their age, I usually tell each of them that they can’t be over twenty-nine years old. Everyone wants to be young, and for some reason people think you’re officially old when you’re thirty. I’d complain about this, but then I’d sound like an old-timer. Well I still might, since I have something else to gripe about.New cosmological evidence points to a universe that is even older than once thought. The evidence of a very old universe keeps piling up, even though young-earth creationists continue to chase “yabbut” trails.

“Yabbut radio carbon dating is flawed.”
“Yabbut science cannot observe past events”
“Yabbut the fossil record actually points to a young earth”

I used to be a young-earth creationist, but gave it up mainly because the evidence of an old earth always crushed the young-earth propositions. But it was a long haul for me, because I held tightly to my literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. And that is, I believe, the main motivation behind most of the young-earth chatter. If the universe is very old, if the earth is very old, then that will affect the way you read Genesis. And how you read Genesis could greatly influence your theological approach to the Bible. A deeper fear is that if someone concedes an old universe, then they may give up their Christian faith. That’s not true but believe me, I have felt that fear before.

One of the most popular young-earth arguments is one that I often found hard to accept: God created the universe to appear old, but it is really very young.

So the universe looks 13.8 billion years old, but really she’s only 29 (or 6000–she’s still flattered).

It may sound preposterous on its face, but the argument goes like this:
-When God created Adam, Eve, the animals and the plants, they were mature enough to reproduce (Gen. 1:11, 22, 28).
-Thus, it is not surprising that God created the rest of the universe to look old.

This kind of argument has big problems. The biggest is the fact that it is an argument ad ignorantium–an argument from ignorance. There is no possible way that someone can prove God created the world this way.

Epistemologically, the argument is completely useless even if it were true. Think about it. For the sake of illustration, let’s pretend that you are 50 years old. What if God actually created the universe just 1 year ago. One year ago today, God created the space-time continuum, Earth, all the people on earth, and you. But you look 50. You still have memories of your past 10, 20, 30, 40 years of life already, even though those memories didn’t actually happen. Everyone else in the universe was created the same way and at the same time. They were also created one year ago, but have no perception of it. God created all things to appear as if they have existed for a long, long time.

If this scenario were true, how old would you be? Would you be one year old, or fifty?

Well, you would be fifty. God made you to be fifty. All the evidence in the universe points to the fact that you are fifty. Scientific research says that you are fifty. Your friends tell you that you are fifty. Every ontological bit of evidence in the created universe points to the fact that you are fifty (because it was created to show that).

But aren’t you really only one year old? No! God is the one who made you one year ago with all your perceptions and knowledge which proves beyond a shadow of doubt that you are fifty.

Now this gets to my point. What if God created the universe 6000 years ago but made it appear in every way shape and form to be 13.8 billion years old?

Well, then it is 13.8 billion years old.

You may say, “No, it only appears to be that old!”
But if God created it to be old…then it is OLD! Its ontology is old, so it is old. It doesn’t simply appear old, it is old!

You see, the “universe only appears old” argument goes nowhere. Even if it is correct–even if God created the cosmos to appear old, then there would be no other way for us to see it.
You might as well say that the world is only one year old and God created it to look much older. There is no direct evidence to support that, so it cannot be affirmed. It is a useless argument.

This is a little heady, but hopefully you see my point.

Categories: Creation, Evolution, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Some Kind of Adam Existed

Did Adam and Eve really exist? A great question if you’re considering different approaches to the Bible‘s creation account. C. John Collins has taught at Covenant Seminary for nearly twenty years, so he writes from a conservative/traditional perspective that supports the Westminster Confession and, of course, inerrancy.  I found his tone pastoral and kind as he honestly and practically addressed a hot topic in biblical studies today.

In the preface, Collins states that the book would propose an argument that defends a form of the traditional argument for Adam and Eve’s existence, recognizing the tension between more literalist views and those that recognize evolutionary models. He rejects “concordism”–the view that the Bible’s report of an event can be reconciled with modern scientific conclusions. Instead, he recognizes that Genesis 1-3 is an ancient retelling of something historical.  It is a form of “pre-history,” that uses ancient symbols and terms to describe an actual event.  The story is theologically instructive, but is not as precise as we moderners would expect. Since a more standard method of recording/reporting history did not arrive until about the fifth century BCE with the arrival of Herodotus, we should expect no less than a proto-history model from Genesis 1-3.

I really enjoyed Collins’s overview of the positions on Genesis 1-3.  I also appreciate the fact that he considers the scientific positions of some scientists and their studies, but he makes it clear that some of the data is inaccessible to him (118), which I take to mean that he’s recognizing that his understanding of it is limited.  He takes on the possibility that, according to biological and archeological studies, there may not have been a single couple that were the first humans, but groups of hominoids that were developing in different places around the world gradually developed into human beings.  Of course, this is difficult to reconcile with the biblical creation account, and Collins steers clear of it.  His criteria for “sound thinking” (which I think means traditional biblical thinking) states that there must have been some point in history where God moved on a particular hominoid, bestowing upon him the ‘image of God’.  There must also have been a singular event that we call the Fall, when sin and spiritual death cursed the world.  Genesis does not have to be precise in its description (it is ancient literature, after all), but the broad strokes of the picture must have been historically true.  To his credit, Collins gives a great deal of wiggle room for interpreting Genesis 1-3.  As I said before, his tone is kind, but some of his terms are loaded.  When he calls his own points the criteria to stay within “sound thinking” (120), I raise an eyebrow.

Intaglio,, copperplate print (KJV) 1631 Holy B...

Image via Wikipedia

Collins gives a great overview of several views on the creation account favoring, among others, Greg Beale’s comparison of it to the Hebrew temple–that God made the universe to be a sanctuary and cosmic worship center.  He cites John Walton more than once, giving some praise and some criticism.  He agrees with Walton that Genesis 1-3 taught a unique Hebrew world view, but seems to indicate that Walton dismisses a distinction between natural and supernatural events in the Bible (Collins, 108n5; Walton, The Lost World of Geneis One, 16-22).  Collins suggests that Walton betrays his position when he affirms evolution overall, but suggests that God acted directly when forming Adam and Eve (Walton, Lost World, 139).  I think Collins misses the point here.  Walton’s proposal was that the ancient writer would not be able to make a distinction between natural and supernatural events like the modern person does almost every day.  But such distinctions are fair game for modern readers who make these distinctions all the time.  So, there’s no need to call foul on Walton when he makes a scientific distinction as a modern reader of an ancient text.

Collins also takes a poke at one of Peter Enns‘s comments in his earlier book Inspiration and Incarnation, where Enns writes that myth, “is an ancient, premodern, prescientific way of addressing questions of ultimate origins and maning in the form of stories: Who are we? Where do we come from?”  Collins accuses Enns of triumphalism: “it seems to imply that we in the modern scientific world are more sophisticated than the ancients.  This overlooks the astounding achievements of ancient peoples in the areas that we would call mathematics and engineering” (29).

No, it doesn’t.  Enns is not saying that ancient people are incompetent.  Instead, he’s actually affirming that they were using literary methods which were common to that era.  The writer of Genesis was using the highest level of cutting-edge literary techniques.  They were as Enns says: “premodern” and “prescientific”.  Enns was not criticizing, he was defining myth (which is not an easy task!).  I fear that Collins used a classic straw-man argument here.  What’s more, Collins’s book ultimately argues something similar to what Enns’s quote affirms, that the creation account is “prehistory” and “protohistory” (57).  Collins states that the facts of Adam and Eve were shrouded in the “mists of antiquity” (57).  Later, he affirms C. S. Lewis‘s view, which Collins admits is mythic (128-29) but does not condemn Lewis with triumphalism.

Collins’s book is very helpful and an easy read for the most part.  As my title here suggests, he gives a green light to many interpretive approaches to Genesis 1-3 as long as they affirm the basic points it makes.  There was a literal Adam at some point in history and there was a literal Fall.  I like his approach to the biblical text, but I think his handling of the scientific evidence is lacking.

Categories: Creation | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Blog at

goodbye religion

So long to institutional thinking...

J. B. Gissing

think deeply • see differently • understand the world

Dunelm Road

Dunelm is Latin for Durham (England)

Next Theology

Just another site


An Academic Blog


Just another site

maskil leDawid

meditations, supplications, lamentations, disputations

Naturalis Historia

Exploring the Intersection of Science and Faith in the Spirit of John Ray

%d bloggers like this: