\n<\/p>\n
\u201cApparent age\u201d means that God created the cosmos to look<\/em> billions of years old when in fact it is only a few 1000 years old.\u00a0This is seen by some* as a solution to why\u00a0the earth looks so old when the Bible says it is so young.<\/p>\n \u201cApparent age\u201d\u00a0has the convenient benefit of allowing one to\u00a0accept the\u00a0observations<\/em>\u00a0of science while rejecting the\u00a0interpretation<\/em>\u00a0of those observations by scientists. The interpretation of those observations remains securely with Scripture itself, not with scientists or others who refuse to accept the Scripture\u2019s \u201cclear\u201d teaching.<\/p>\n In other words, one can \u201caccept\u201d the scientific data while also remaining a biblical literalist.\u00a0Science only studies what God\u00a0appeared<\/em>\u00a0to have done, and scientists are free to have at it. Scripture, however, tells us, without fear of contradiction, what God actually\u00a0did<\/em>.<\/p>\n This kind of thinking may appear to be a tidy solution to the problem, but in fact, it creates many more.<\/p>\n The overarching\u00a0problem\u2014not only here but at any point wherever science\/faith issues are engaged\u00a0by\u00a0fundamentalists\u2014is the\u00a0assertion<\/em> that Genesis<\/a> is prepared to tell us how old the earth is<\/strong>. Little if any serious consideration is given to seeing Genesis as ancient literature, which\u00a0can\u2019t be sidestepped quite so easily.<\/p>\n But\u00a0even if we accept \u201capparent age\u201d for the sake of discussion, the theory\u00a0loses traction quickly, for 3 reasons.<\/p>\n It is surely obvious that the theory of \u201capparent age\u201d is generated to make the observations of science fit the assertion of literalist readers of Genesis. Unless one were pre-committed to a literal reading of Genesis, one would never think of making this sort of claim.<\/p>\n Making facts fit a theory is an unfortunately common, yet to some still unacceptable, method of establishing one\u2019s point. It is particularly common in theological debates, where one assumes that one\u2019s own theological\u00a0pre-commitments\u00a0are the sure and unassailable point of departure.<\/p>\n When theology is only to be defended, and never examined,\u00a0<\/strong>counter-evidence is either molded to fit the theory or ignored altogether. And so true discussion\u2014an exchange of ideas\u2014never really gets off the ground. The issues at stake are bound up with ideological self-preservation.<\/strong>\u00a0When fear of losing one\u2019s \u201call-encompassing narrative\u201d is at stake, reasonable assessment\u00a0of contrary evidence is an early casualty, which leaves us with \u201cexplanations\u201d like \u201capparent age.\u201d<\/p>\n Such explanations\u00a0demonstrate\u00a0that the theology driving them is a barrier to truth more than its guardian.<\/p>\n Many\u2014might I say, most\u2014Christian thinkers trained in these matters (science, biblical studies, theology, philosophy) are deeply invested in working through how Genesis is to be read not only in view of evolution, but of our growing understanding of how \u201corigins stories\u201d worked in the ancient Near Eastern world (a whole other topic). Christians are not\u00a0helped by insisting we cut ourselves off\u00a0from these potential conversation partners and retreat to an\u00a0ad hoc<\/em>\u00a0explanation like \u201capparent age.\u201d<\/p>\n The world does not just show evidence of age. It also shows evidence of millions upon millions upon millions of years of evolution, judging by the wealth of evidence at hand (e.g., fossils, geological records, human genome).<\/p>\n The theory of \u201capparent age\u201d needs to account for\u00a0why the cosmos\u2014including the earth and life on it\u2014looks like it evolved.<\/strong><\/p>\n Of course, one could simply add another ad hoc explanation: God created not only with apparent age but with \u201capparent evolutionary process.\u201d<\/p>\n But how many\u00a0ad hoc\u00a0<\/em>theories would one need to advance in order to preserve biblical literalism? At what point do the\u00a0ad hoc\u00a0<\/em>explanations begin to seem more like a stubborn bunker mentality\u00a0rather than a true\u00a0explanation\u00a0of things?<\/p>\n It also raises some serious questions about God. Why would God do such a thing? Why would God\u00a0load the cosmos with all this evidence and then expect us\u00a0to stop short of drawing some conclusions from that evidence?<\/strong><\/p>\n I think this is a very serious issue. \u201cApparent age\u201d gives us a God who makes the world look one way, but then expects us to hold all that at bay in favor of a literalistic reading of Genesis that, according to biblical literalists, God requires of us.<\/p>\n Is God\u2014like a touchy tyrant\u2014testing our allegiance to see if we will hold fast to his word? I think the Christian God is better than that.<\/p>\n Biblical literalists reject evolution and the age of the earth because their literal\u00a0reading of the Bible demands it.<\/p>\n But they can\u2019t\u00a0stop there.<\/p>\n They\u00a0must follow that same\u00a0own logic in explaining other biblical statements about the physical world that don\u2019t line up with modern science<\/strong>. After all, if the Bible must be given the last word, then it must be given the last word consistently.<\/p>\n The biblical writers thought the earth was a flat disk. since Scripture has the final word,\u00a0must we not conclude that the world only\u00a0looks<\/em>\u00a0round\u2014that\u00a0God created the earth with \u201capparent roundness?\u201d <\/strong>[Side note: the\u00a0\u201ccircle of the earth\u201d in Isaiah 40:22<\/strong> is not, in any\u00a0conceivable way, evidence that an inspired biblical author knew that the earth was round. The \u201ccircle\u201d in question is flat. ]\n<\/p>\n Likewise, Genesis 1\u00a0speaks of the sky overhead as a dome (Hebrew raqia<\/em>). Therefore, it can only\u00a0appear\u00a0<\/em>that we have broken free of our atmosphere and orbited the earth, landed on the moon, and are moving further to the outer limits of our solar system daily. God created the cosmos with \u201capparent outer space.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n The Bible speaks of the earth as the stable, motionless, center of the cosmos. Therefore, it can only\u00a0appear<\/em> that the earth rotates on its axis, thus giving us day and night, or that the earth revolves around the sun, along with the other planets, on its yearly course. God created the solar system with \u201capparently heliocentricity.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n I don\u2019t mean to be unfair. I am sure that biblical literalists believe in none\u00a0of these things. But my point is that they should<\/strong>\u2014if they mean what they say about the Bible\u2019s role in adjudicating matters of science.<\/p>\n Why place Genesis 1 on the \u201cmust-read literally\u201d side of the line and not on the \u201cthis is an ancient idiom\u201d side (as literalists routinely do with a flat, stationary, domed earth)?<\/p>\n Decisions about what should and should not be read literally seem arbitrary, indeed\u2014which is the very accusation literalists like to make of\u00a0others.<\/em><\/p>\n Some speak of \u201capparent age\u201d with calm assurance, as if nothing could be more obvious and logical. But it is an explanation that creates many more problems than it tries to solve. Those problems are rooted in an unexamined precommitment that Christians have no choice but to read Genesis literally.<\/p>\n But they do have a choice. Just ask around.<\/p>\n [I explore the relationship between science and faith in\u00a0The Evolution of Adam<\/strong> <\/em><\/a>(Baker 2012) and the nature of the Bible in\u00a0Inspiration and Incarnation<\/a><\/strong><\/em> (Baker 2nd ed.\u00a02015) and\u00a0The Bible Tells Me So<\/strong><\/em> <\/a>(HarperOne, 2014)]<\/p>\n *Today\u2019s post has gone through a couple of iterations, most recently July 2016. The origins of the posts go back to my old blog in October 2011, where my focus was on Al Mohler, who seemed quite animated<\/a> about all this, but the problem is much bigger. It remains an attractive option among those who insist that the Bible must be read \u201cliterally\u201d and are oblivious to the problems literalism\u00a0causes.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n1.\u201cApparent age\u201d is an arbitrary claim that makes the \u201cfacts fit the theory.\u201d<\/h2>\n
2. The world shows evidence of age\u00a0and<\/span>\u00a0evolutionary development.<\/h2>\n
3.\u00a0\u201cApparent age\u201d is\u00a0arbitrary about\u00a0what portions of Scripture are to be read\u00a0\u201cplainly.\u201d<\/h2>\n