English
Português
Español
Français
Answer
The issue of how the geologic timescale aligns with the “young-earth” perspective is a valid one. Not all scientists, nor all Christians, concur on how the evidence observed in geology can be reconciled with a young-earth viewpoint. Some individuals, including those who uphold the authenticity of the Bible and acknowledge God as the Creator, dispute that young-earth perspectives can be reconciled with observations of the geologic timescale.
It can be overwhelming to navigate conflicting assertions. An abundance of conflicting evidence, particularly for those lacking extensive scientific knowledge, is not particularly beneficial. Ultimately, the most prudent stance a non-specialist can adopt regarding the geologic timescale is that of open-mindedness. Nothing unearthed in geology, in any respect, undermines the accuracy of the Bible. Scientists who consider Scripture to be flawless and without error sometimes differ on precisely how to interpret those observations. Given that the geologic timescale is not explicitly addressed in the Bible, there is significant leeway for Christians to arrive at varying conclusions.
Geologists scrutinize rock layers in the earth’s crust to estimate the age of the materials deposited there. In certain instances, these layers, known as strata, may contain remains of plant and animal life that have been buried and preserved through fossilization. Occasionally, specific fossils are exclusive to particular layers and are known as “index fossils.” Paleontologists—scientists who study ancient plants and animals—often rely on assumptions about fossils to determine the age of rock layers.
Detractors argue that this sets up a circular reasoning. Presumptions about the age of fossils are used to date rock layers, while presumptions about the age of rock layers are used to date fossils. These critics also highlight that strata are not always discovered in the anticipated sequence. Additionally, they observe that certain rock formations exhibit inconsistent fossils: organisms that are preserved in the “incorrect layer” based on paleontology’s assumptions.tions. In some cases, it’s possible to find fossils from supposedly different eras preserved in the same rock.
The conundrum this poses for the non-scientist was succinctly stated by J. E. O’Rourke in the mid-1970s:
“The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism” (“Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, vol. 276, January 1976, p. 47).
While O’Rourke’s comment has some truth, it also omits a lot of information. The “hard-headed pragmatism” of geologists is, in a sense, a reason to take their interpretations seriously. Secular or devout, a geologist is generally interested in understanding rocks so that one can make predictions and properly analyze the earth’s crust. This is especially important in the energy sector—e.g., fossil fuels—and in mining. Those industries in particular have provided literally hundreds of thousands of observations about strata. There is little incentive, and very much at risk, for any geologist to favor an inaccurate assumption.
Christian geologists, for example, point out that natural phenomena can cause geologic strata to be mixed or inverted. The basic geologic timescale used today predates Darwin’s theories of evolution. In fact, this general system was finalized by devout believer John Phillips, who debated Charles Darwin on such issues. At the very least, this indicates the modern geologic timescale is not in any sense dependent on certain views of evolution.
Those same Bible-believing scientists also note that the development of an old-earth geologic timescale was driven more by the discovery of processes that give every appearance of requiring long times to complete. When radiometric and astronomic observations of the early twentiethIn the 19th century, observations matched those findings, seeming to confirm that the geologic timescale— at least in appearance— is significantly older than what young-earth views suggest.
Ultimately, the geologic column and the acknowledged geologic timescale resemble most other aspects of human knowledge. They are fallible and subject to change but should not be entirely dismissed. More importantly, it is not essential for a Christian to rigidly adhere to either a young-earth or old-earth perspective to remain faithful to Scripture. Arguments of various kinds, with varying validity, can be presented for each position.
Nevertheless, all Christians should concur on two critical points. First, it is conceivable for God to have created a young earth that appears aged. Second, widespread scientific observations undeniably give the impression of an “old” earth. The precise implications of this concerning Scripture are subject to a certain degree of personal interpretation.
