Creation Science Rebuttals

    In this edition, a submitter, S.D., gives evidences for an old universe based on astronomical arguments.  He does a very good job of presenting his case, although the Answers in Genesis responders (Jason Lisle and Matthew D'Orazio) are of course unwilling to admit he is right.  Rest assured, S.D., that the universe is old.

     One interesting point is that AiG does a point-by-point blow of every claim...except they omitted part of one paragraph.  Could they not provide an answer to this one statement?  (Read it to see for yourself).

     The purpose of this Old Earth Ministries rebuttal is not to answer every point.  In dealing with astronomy, we are dealing with models that are thought to be correct, but which are not backed up by actual scientific observations (they are backed up by computer modeling, and by limited observations).  Given the theoretical nature of the subject, it is entirely possible to believe in a young universe...it just simply isn't rational. 

     One very important point should be made, however.  While it is true that a lot of the astronomical models cannot be verified by observation/experimentation, the exact same problem is faced by young earth creationist astronomers.  Their theories of how light reached the earth from billions of light years away, which is the main problem they face, also cannot be confirmed by observation. 

     As a result of the theoretical nature of the origins of the universe, it is easy for the young earth theorists to find flaws which have not been solved.  This does not mean that the earth is young...it merely means that current explanations are insufficient.  Because of this, a blow-by-blow rebuttal for this article is not necessary, nor would any young earth creationists listen anyway.

What's the Real Issue?

    The real issue here is the same one posed by the feedback from the week previous to this one.  Thus, the material below is mostly a repeat of last week's conclusion.

     As Lisle and D'Orazio say, "The real issue is this: Do you place your faith in ideas about the past by men who weren't there and are imperfect, or do you place your faith in God's perfect Word, who eyewitnessed the past?  Who are you going to trust first?"

     We all agree, both young and old earth creationists, that God's Word is the final authority.  Yet, we reach vastly different conclusions about the age of the earth.  What is the difference?  Although God's Word is correct, it all depends on how you interpret God's Word.  In the end, whether you believe in a young earth, or an old earth, this is your interpretation...the interpretations of "imperfect man."  While the Word of God remains true, our interpretations, both old and young earth, may be wrong.

     Lisle and D'Orazio, in their claim that the earth is young, are expressing their interpretation of the Word of God.  Lisle and D'Orazio are what?  They are imperfect men, interpreting a perfect Word of God.  They are not expressing the absolute truth of the Word of God, but merely their opinion about what it means.  Unless Lisle and D'Orazio are equal to God, they cannot say that their view is the absolute truth.  They cannot claim that their view is the Word of God.  Lisle and D'Orazio are walking a very fine line between interpretation and blasphemy.

     In the end, it is not a matter of whether or not you believe God's Word...it's a matter of how you interpret that Word.  We are free to argue our interpretations, but we are not free to insist that ours is the only right way to interpret the Word.  In other words, the claims of Lisle and D'Orazio is not "the Word of God"...it is merely their interpretation of the Word of God.

     The same is true of science.  Both are interpretations, and we are free to argue them.  While science clearly supports an old earth, Lisle and D'Orazio are free to make whatever claims they want, no matter how faulty they are.

     Fortunately, in the end, it doesn't matter if the earth is old or young.  The words of Billy Graham sums this up best.  Neither theory of origins has any impact upon the salvation message.