Reconcile Biblical dating with scientific dating?
25 scientists share their perspective on time.
Gary Sabiya wrote:
“I am aware that there are various scientific means of pre-historic dating, among them is the popular carbon-14 isotope dating. However, these dating methods seem to be in conflict with Biblical dating. Are there any flaws or shortcomings in the current scientific dating methods? If not, how do we reconcile Biblical dating with scientific dating?”
Earth & Sky Science Advisors respond to Gary’s question below.
Bruce A. Wielicki
NASA Langley Research Center
Hampton, VA.
Gary:
As a Christian and a scientist I had to come to grips long ago with the conflict between Genesis and science. Here is how I have come to reconcile these seemingly different views of creation (because the scientific evidence is extensive in many fields (not only carbon dating) and cannot be wished away).
Genesis is in essence an Old Testament parable. Explaining that God created the universe through a set of physical laws that encompass an incredible diversity of physical and biological life (including evolution) would have been totally lost on the people of the Old Testament. The bible is a much richer book than it would be if simply literally interpreted. A literal interpretation would restrict its message and focus it on the people, culture, and times in which it was written. The New Testament is very explicit about the need for and power of parables. Just like in science, there are major concepts that if presented in a more general form, can be applied to a wide range of specific situations. The Bible is not a cook book. Its a physics text for the spiritual part of the universe. The Old Testament is Part I: some of the simpler concepts, told in simpler stories, and closer to the concepts that you feel you can see or touch (like the physics of billiard balls in elastic collisions). The New Testament is Part II: the heavier stuff with lessons that are designed to stretch you beyond what you can simply see and touch (quantum, relativity, magnetism, etc).
So to me, Genesis is a parable. And evolution is yet another example of God setting the laws of the universe in such a way as to let us come to be in the most natural and elegant way possible. If you believe that God is all knowing and all powerful: what more elegant way to start a universe than to set its physical laws, and kick start it with the Big Bang. Awesome indeed. Of course we may not be His only universe, just as we may not be His only children. And like a father giving lessons to his children, the early lessons have to be very simple when trying to explain things that are complicated beyond the child’s readiness to understand a literal or full explanation. In fact, we are probably at best in the early teen age years now…
Steven K. Webster
Monterey Bay Aquarium
Monterey, CA
Dear Gary:
The authors of the Bible (and other texts left out of the Bible by various self-appointed authorities) were contemporaries of their times (2,000 years ago +/- a few hundred years). They did not know the Earth is round, or that it orbits the sun, or that electrocardiograms can help diagnose heart problems, or that MRI exams can pinpoint brain tumors. Modern science trumps their conclusions at every turn, including the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, and the means by which organic evolution results in the biodiversity we observe on this planet.
I believe to plan our lives on the basis of a belief in miracles is a risky bet, at best. I’ll cast my vote with human reason and science. Thanks for asking.
John R. Christy
Alabama State Climatologist
Director of the Earth System Science Center
University of Alabama in Huntsville
Gary:
As a former missionary to Africa, seminary graduate, minister and now atmospheric scientist I would sum up the issue this way. The Bible answers questions of Who and Why, science answers questions of How and When. In Science we try to find the best explanations for what is observed. In Faith we seek to know not “ who we are” but “whose we are”.
Geerat J. Vermeij
Department of Geology
University of California at Davis
Gary,
You know how on some TV shows, the detectives can tell how much time passed since a person died because they are able to measure certain things like dried blood, the condition of the skin and muscles, and so on? They are able to make the accurate estimate of the time of death because a body decomposes in a predictable, well-documented way over time. One element that assists in these kinds of determinations is carbon. Just about all life on Earth contains carbon, it�s reasonable to say that it�s one of the most common elements on the planet because all life on Earth uses it for life processes such as digestion, breathing, and building muscles and bones. Carbon, and other elements, can be measured in many ways, and the measurements have been shown to be accurate predictors of time�s passage. Just like on the cop show, when an animal dies, certain elements in its body begin to break down and the loss of these elements continues at a steady and predictable rate over time. So, when a bone is discovered, let�s say the bone of a large reptile that is now extinct, it is possible to measure the remaining amount of the elements that were present in the animal when it was alive.
It is important to remember that when scientists accept as accurate a measurement procedure such as this one, they understand that it is not perfect. In other words, if a bone is found, and the measurement, such as carbon dating, identifies the bone as 50 million years old, the actual age of the bone, considering the possibility of acceptable error, would be somewhere between 45 and 55 million years old. If you have serious doubts about the dating process, let�s say that the scientists are way off, perhaps by 10 times as much. That would mean that the bone would be at least 5 million years old. If the scientists were off by a 100 times – which is about the same thing as the detectives confusing a one-year old cadaver from a 3-day-old cadaver – then the bone they’d found would still be half a million, or 500,000 years old.
Many scientists consider it a beautiful truth that the world is so ancient and varied, just as many theologians consider their faith a source of beauty and truth. There is no reason the two truths cannot co-exist in the world because religious faith needs not rely upon scientific fact any more than scientific fact must rely upon religious faith.
Marc Fagelson
Department of Communicative Disorders
East Tennessee State University
Johnson City, TN
Gary, I’m sure that you would agree the world would be much better off if the two lines of thought co-existed more easily.
Geerat J. Vermeij
Department of Geology
University of California at Davis
As an evolutionary biologist and paleontologist, I would say that methods of dating are based on sound principles of decay of one isotope into another. At the time the Bible was written, people knew virtually nothing of science, so they invented stories that seemed compatible with what they observed. But we have learned much since then. Like science itself, religious beliefs must change; if they don’t, they will be discarded.
Benjamin S. Orlove
Department of Environmental Science and Policy
University of California
Davis, CA
I’d start by saying that the Bible and science have in common a strong fascination with historical narrative. They both trace the universe as its patterns unfold in time. And the stories are often tied to units of time. The Bible speaks of days and years and generations, and we must look closely to see what these words meant: we can’t assume that a day or a year was the same in the past. In other words, the Bible narratives require close reading to make sure that we don’t insert our current understanding of time units.
Bohdan Paczynski
Department of Astrophysical Sciences
Princeton University
As far as I know, some Christians – approximately one billion Christians – have no problem reconciling science and religion. I have in mind the Catholics, who follow the Pope on those matters. In particular an estimate of the current age of the universe, about 12.7 billion years, the Big Bang, and the evolution, are no problem for those one billion of Christians.
I do not know much about other religions, but the few Muslims I know tell me that there is no conflict between Islam and science.
Bill Patzert
Research Oceanographer
NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Pasadena, CA
Religion and science are both systems of ethics, values and beliefs. Religion is based on ancient, supernatural explanations of human’s relationship with the Universe. In contrast, science is the systematic acquisition of knowledge of the Universe that is verifiable. Here we have the conflict – fact vs. faith. In my experience, this conflict is quite emotional on both sides. Quite honestly, I don’t think I would attempt to reconcile Gary’s Christian thought with my scientific thought – especially at a cocktail party. Why ruin my evening? But I hope Gary’s children are attending a good public school where the scientific explanations of our Universe are taught. If Gary is really curious about his question, I can recommend some good books on this topic. It seems fair that he should read up on this. Hey, I’ve read the Old Testament. Good for him for asking!
Bob & Ellen Kaplan
co-authors of The Nothing That Is, The Art of the Infinite, and the forthcoming Out of the Labyrinth: Setting Mathematics Free
A deep part of our nature wants to understand; equally deep is our distrust of answers that stop short. In Biblical times people were inspired by faith to believe that the truth was revealed to a special few, who then passed it on to us.
In our times it seems we too believe that a special few – scientists – have revelations that we can only take their word for. But there’s a significant difference. Any of us can learn to look at evidence critically, form guesses to explain it, and then test those guesses. We have to be willing to give up a guess if our testing shows that it fails to explain the evidence – and then guess and test again.
Isn’t this in fact how all of us navigate through our daily lives? Science works humbly in ways that grow from our common experiences. Its results don’t diminish the glory of the universe but enhance it: they change our wonder into awe at that deep fittingness of things.
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, CO
There was an excellent program on NPR a short time ago on archaeology about Biblical times. The best work on archaeology makes clear that the Bible is not a historical document. Many events portrayed demonstrably did not happen or did not happen at the times and places depicted. Some may be out by 1000 to 2000 years. (2000 BC instead of 400 BC). Cities reported to be in existence were not there until much later. Many events took place over say 200 years but are compressed in the Bible to a few years. The Bible should not be taken literally.
Richard Alley
Department of Geosciences
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA
Gary – Great question. There are no large problems with the scientific dating methods, and they can be reconciled with religious writings.
A tree that grandma planted in the orchard can be dated by counting the years of growth, and you’ll notice that “good” and “bad” years made thick and thin layers. The wood in the checkerboard that grandpa made from a tree in great-great-grandfather’s orchard will have that pattern of good and bad rings, and matching them up allows a record longer than the life span of one tree. The longest such tree-ring record combining living and nearby dead wood is now well over 10,000 years long. Tree-ring chronologies are useful to archaeologists in understanding key sites, and frequently attest to the accuracy of historical records, but also show additional time older than written history. Hence, a purely literal interpretation of written histories does not cover the whole age of the Earth. People studying ice-core layers get the same answer. (By finding the chemically fingerprinted ash of historically dated volcanic eruptions, the ice-core people can check themselves back through written history, and there are lots of older ice layers below that.)
Many scientists work on the dating techniques, including counting of annual layers, looking at geological records and figuring out how rapidly they could have formed, and dating with various other “clocks” including the radiocarbon you mention and many others. These different techniques agree with written history as far back as it goes, and they agree with each other. There is plenty of work to do to increase precision, and intelligent use is required, but the dating techniques do work, and do show a fascinating, old Earth that we love to study.
Religious people deal with this in many ways. Some say that the scientists are evil liars, or have been led astray by the devil. Some speculate that a young Earth was made to look old to guide us to oil and minerals. Some note that the Bible often has used “common” words to express uncommon ideas. Biblical scholars long ago decided that Psalm 93 (“The world will surely stand in place, never to be moved”) does not actually require the sun to orbit the Earth. Many Christians view the pre-Exodus Biblical chronologies in this way – don’t think of a “day” as 24 hours during the first “week” in Genesis. You may gain insight from possibly the world’s most famous Sunday-School teacher, former president James Earl (“Jimmy”) Carter, a scientifically trained and deeply religious person, who said (CNN, 2004) “There can be no incompatibility between Christian faith and proven facts concerning geology, biology, and astronomy. There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat Earth in order to defend our religious faith.”
Kai Lee
Center for Environmental Studies
Williams College
Williamstown, MA
I have no expertise on the question posed, beyond having a firm belief in radioactive decay and the exponential law. I do think the literal truth of the Bible is a very difficult position to reconcile with the findings of science. My sense of this (not being a Christian but respecting Christianity) is that there are moral truths in the Bible that are to be taken literally, and that there is a respect to be owed to this ancient historical document. Like all historical documents (at least those in which humans have played a role in transmitting) there are inconsistencies, some of which we can resolve. For the rest, we should pray for grace, if I understand what prayer and grace mean.
Cheers,
Kai
Robert M. Hazen
Geophysical Laboratory
Carnegie Institution of Washington
Washington, DC
I’ve been asked this question every semester for 10 years (as well as at parties). The shortest answer is that there’s no current debate or controversy among scientists about the C-14 dating method. It has been correlated with tree rings, ice cores, and sediments that have annual rings or layers back to at least 50,000 years. There have been minor fluctuations in the amount of atmospheric C-14, but nothing dramatic.
Longer answers involve talking about the nature of observational evidence, and science versus faith as ways of knowing. Bottom line: Science cannot disprove the existence of God, nor can it deny that the universe is imbued with meaning and purpose. And for many of us in science, the best way to know the Creator is to look outside at creation. Even longer answers are found in various books and articles (including some of my own), to which I refer interested individuals.
Barry A. Rice, Ph.D.
The Nature Conservancy
Davis, CA
Interesting discussion.
There is no denying some conflicts here. Carbon-14 dating, an example of radioisotope dating, is just one of many techniques that science uses to date the age of ancient objects. If it was the only technique, it would be an easy target for questioning. But there ARE other methods science uses to gauge ages, and they back up the radioisotope techniques. Incidentally, the radioactive decay processes behind carbon data are well understood: well enough so that it is used to understand radioactivity used in warfare, energy production, and medical technologies.
So, how do you reconcile an anthropologist holding an “80,000-year-old artifact” with a “6,000-year-old Earth” of scripture? You really can’t. The problem is in mixing the roles of Science and Religion. The 6,000 year old Earth image is not a biblical teaching, it is not a pillar of Christianity. It is not a number stated in the Bible. Instead, it is the result of James Ushher attempting a “scientific” analysis of biblical dates. The Bible is a spiritual book, not a scientific one, so trying to make it into something it isn’t will of course have peculiar results.
Look to science for facts, and religion for spirituality. Not the other way around.
If Gary pressed me, and he seemed interested, I’d happily point out that C14 dating assumes steady-state accumulation of materials from space, etc., which cannot be completely proven, but would only venture down this path with caution because the public frequently mistakes minor scientific questions as justification for throwing out the entire argument.
Thomas J. Corona
Department of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences
Metropolitan State College of Denver
Denver, CO
They can’t be reconciled. One is a scientific view of the age of the Earth based on principles of physics and chemistry, in other words, natural laws. The other is the result of oral histories, recollections, and mythologies of a time without calendars and clocks. It’s kind of like comparing apples to oranges. They are both fruit (histories), but they are nothing alike.
Sure there are inaccuracies in all dating methods, including the Bible’s. A good overview (although I’ve only read a review) on how scientists date things and events can be found in the following book: Bones, Rocks and Stars : The Science of When Things Happened by Chris Turney. It is written for non-scientists.
Chris Corbally
Vatican Observatory Group
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ
The point of biblical dates is to tell me that God acts in history. That scientific dating implies that the further the biblical author was from the event, like the origin of the world portrayed in Genesis chapter 1, the less accurate the author’s dating is not “the point”. So for scientific dating I look to carbon-14 isotope work or, say, the theory of stellar evolution, but for the relationship between those dates and the saving action of God I look to the Bible’s theology.
Susan Boa
Joint Oceanographic Institutions, Inc.
Washington, DC
My answer to that question is much shorter and simpler: who are we to understand the length of God’s day?
Steven R. Bohlen
Joint Oceanographic Institutions
Washington, DC
If one is looking for agreement between a literal interpretation of the Bible and what is known both about scientific dating and the age of the planet, one is likely to be frustrated and disappointed. The scientific web of information about the age of Earth, the ages of rocks on Earth, and the logically compelling consistency among many different methods, both quantitative (isotope) and relative (geological superposition), dating, all point to the Earth’s great antiquity. The convergence of many lines of evidence place the age of the Earth at 4.56 billion years in a universe of 13.6 billion years since the big bang. There are complexities and challenges in applying each isotopic system to obtain age information. Each system has unique characteristics that complicate the interpretation of the age information derived. There are however many different isotopic systems, all of which would have to be wrong in very specific and consistent ways for all to be giving consistent, but completely wrong answers in always one direction (giving ages that are too old).
Some have pointed to changes in the decay rate, thought to be constant over time by scientists, to account for the discrepancy. Again, because of the various decay schemes, of which there are many, the radioactive constants would have to vary in precise ways at precise times for there to be consistency among the methods and have the answers be internally consistent and consistently too old. Also, the physicists would have much to say about inconsistently variable decay rates. That is to say, not only are there problems from an Earth-age and geology perspective, but from a physical matter perspective, and a chemical perspective, and so on.
If one is willing to view the Bible as a general guide and not a literal guide, then one can envision a more satisfying consensus. For example, scientists have inferred that many important events in the history of Earth happened rather quickly. The mass of the planet formed quite rapidly from the solar gas cloud after sun formation. The core of the Earth separated rather quickly from an undifferentiated Earth shortly after the planetary mass had accumulated (about 30 MY after Earth mass accumulation). Stable continents formed early in Earth history (evidence of oldest rocks is 4.4 billion years, only about 150 million years after Earth formation). And so on.
So if one thinks of biblical creation as a metaphor for the kinds of events mentioned above, then one can resolve what one reads in the Bible and and a scientifically determined ancient Earth that has formed and evolved according to the observable (and internally consistent) natural processes of the observable universe.
Thomas Jones
author of Sky Walking: An Astronaut’s Memoir
As a Christian scientist, I use the tools God gave us (our minds, the laws of physics, our observations of the natural world around us) to seek an understanding of how this universe of ours functions. We understand through long experimentation and practice that our methods of radiometric dating consistently explain the ages of Earth and its rocks and organic material in a repeatable way. The methods are based on the observable rates of decay of the very elements our universe is made of, and the laws we have derived from those observations. Thus, unless God is deliberately fooling us, these ages are accurate and repeatable measurements that help us understand the origins of Earth and the universe.
I see no conflict with these scientifically provable and repeatable measurements, and those metaphoric or literary references to time in the Bible, written originally for people whose concepts of time were relative rather than absolute. Now we can make use of our discoveries to put our dating of Earth and sky into an accurate framework, making use of our learning to find out even more about Creation.
John Harte
Energy and Resources Group
University of California
Berkeley, CA
The use of isotopes for scientific dating is a highly reliable method. Many scientific tests have been carried out and the accuracy of the method is confirmed. With respect to it’s acceptance by scientists, it is up there with the use of rulers to measure distance and scales to measure weight.
There are many non-scientific ways to portray the age of something. Some are metaphorical as in “granddad was as old as the hills”, while others may reflect confusion between what we would like to think is true and what is actually true. Literature and mythology, as well as the various religions, abound with lovely chronologies, often intended to be metaphorical rather than literal; sometimes these chronologies are in conflict with each other, and often they wildly differ from the results of scientific measurement. But we need not disparage them for that – for they are not meant to be scientific statements. Enjoy the poetic chronologies, but trust the scientific ones!
Michael C. Grant
Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology
University of Colorado-Boulder
Boulder, CO
There are many methods used in science to date things historically and all of them have advantages and disadvantages. Carbon 14 dating is but one method. Scientists are most convinced of the validity of a date (and dating method) when multiple different, independent methods arrive at the same or nearly the same value. For example, by the careful use of tree-ring data in certain climates, dendrochronologists (i.e. those who specialize in tree-ring data analysis) have been able to construct a continuous record of more than 8,000 years into the past and have used these data to “calibrate” carbon 14 dating protocol. A few individual bristlecone pine trees, still living, have been aged at more than 4,000 years with the oldest at 4,767 years. There are several well-known complications to tree-ring dating, such as multiple rings in a given year, etc. but dendrochronologists know how to deal with them. The precision of the tree rings, often to a single year or just a few years, greatly exceeds the precision of, say, carbon 14 dating. On the other hand, Carbon 14 dating can be extended to roughly 50,000 years, far beyond current tree-ring capabilities. There has been much scientific work to cross-calibrate tree ring dates and carbon 14 dates with sedimentary deposit events and historically reported dates. For example, dating (via carbon 14) recovered wood in ancient tombs which were previously dated by human means, etc. The more these cross-calibrations converge, the more confidence scientists have in the dates. And there has been lots of successful, convincing, cross-calibration.
From a Christian biblical perspective, there are varying views. For example, the “Great Flood” is variously dated as occurring 4,300 to 4,500 years ago, depending on the length of the sojourn of the descendants of Israel in Egypt (an interesting and potentially important point for other purposes, but one which is of minor significance here). This placement of the Great Flood is derived from the numbers in Genesis 11 as given in the Masoretic Text. A second time period identifies the Great Flood as having occurred roughly 5,500 years ago, in accordance with the numbers in Genesis 11 as given by the Septuagint. Lastly, other biblical scholars place the Great Flood at a point usually between 10,000 to 30,000 years ago, and require major gaps in the genealogy of Genesis 11. The precise point is usually not specified by any biblical, archaeological, or geological data. Clearly, these numbers are not very ‘convergent’ with each other.
Some recent scientific work has led to the conjecture that about 7,000 years ago, warmer temperatures led to glacial melting which led to a catastrophic flooding of the Mediterranean over the Straits of Bosporus into the Black Sea. They conjecture this may have been the even that led to the development of the Great Flood oral stories which were, much later, committed to text form.
So the issue of “resolving” Biblical/Science dating conflicts isn’t easy; it is entirely possible they cannot be mutually resolved and must remain in clear conflict.
Elliot Meyerowitz
California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, CA
There are three questions here, and here are three short answers:
Both the theoretical basis and practical application of carbon-14 dating are sound and tested (for example, on tree rings, which provide an independent measurement of time by which carbon-14 dating has been checked).
The conflict with traditional biblical dating is real, and the differences in the two sets of dates are irreconcilable. Not, perhaps, the answer that you want to hear, but that is the way it is.
My thoughts about it, your final question, are that sometimes things are not the way we wish they are, and not the way we have been taught they are – but that inferences from experiments are a more effective basis for organizing our thoughts and actions than are wishful thinking, or traditional teachings.
Jeffrey G. Wardeska
Department of Chemistry
East Tennessee State University
Johnson City, TN
In discussing this issue, it’s important to remember what the Bible is and what it is not. I start from the idea that our religious beliefs help us to answer the “why” questions; is there a purpose for our existence, what meaning is there in life, etc. Science does not provide answers to these questions, but asks the “how” questions, e.g., what are the laws by which our physical world operates? These are different questions about our existence and complement each other. The Bible itself does not provide a date for the beginning. The commonly held creationist view that the earth is 6000 years old (there are many others) is from a calculation by Bishop James Usher, Archbishop of Armagh, Ireland (1581-1656) and is based on one of the genealogies of Jesus in the gospels.
Are there errors or flaws in radioactive dating? Like all scientific experimental data, there are good data and there are results which are less reliable. However, scientists regard the radioactive dating methods as being based on sound and well-understood scientific principles. Carbon-14 dating methods have been calibrated against tree-ring studies, and the sheer number of “good” dates from the various dating methods provides a timeline for the age of the earth which is consistent with other lines of evidence.
I believe, that approaching these questions with an open and questioning mind can provide many additional insights and meaning for us. Science and our beliefs should not be seen as being in conflict, but as complementary ways of understanding our world and our role in it.
Carl Batt
Department of Food Science, Nanobiotechnology
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY
I don’t think that there has to be a single answer to any question, nor does any answer have to be absolute in all cases the sum total of all of the facts. This may seem to be counter to science, that sometimes there is not an absolute truth. Faith is something that does not have to meet the test of science and faith should not be constrained by a need to conform to an absolute set of facts. So the age of the Earth and the age of fossil might seem counter to a certain set of beliefs. For example a story in the Bible. That the Earth is billions of years old should not detract from faith in that story (or more what the story mean to a given individual). Nor should faith oblige the believer to an effort to discount or explain away the science, conjuring up something to explain why the science is not correct. The science is correct, the carbon isotope dating is correct. It is not 100% accurate but it is not sufficiently inaccurate to allow for a literal interpretation that the Earth being only a few thousand years old. These methods are not in conflict with an interpretation of the Bible, but a literal interpretation of the Bible is in conflict with the facts. Facts are not the absolute truth but they are also as good as it gets until proven wrong. Faith should not be used to prove science wrong and science should not be used to discount faith.
Steven Sherwood
Department of Geology and Geophysics
Yale University
New Haven, CT
Scientists seek the simplest explanation for phenomena they observe, because centuries of experience have taught us that this is the most likely to be correct. We observe carbon 14 decay at a certain rate in the laboratory, and know that it originates in the atmosphere because we see this happening today at a rate that should not change much over time. Its reduced concentration in fossils implies a certain age which often turns out to be tens of thousands of years or longer (similar dating methods with longer-lived isotopes yield ages of up to about four billion years for some rocks). We cannot absolutely rule out unexpected, complicated explanations for what we find, just as we cannot prove that the sun and all the planets don’t orbit the earth in curly-cue patterns that violate Newton’s laws—but the pieces fall into place so much more easily if we just suppose that the same principles apply across time and space, and accept that the ages are at least roughly correct (and that the planets all orbit the sun). It is up to each individual to decide how to reconcile the observed facts with religious teachings; I would expect church leaders to help.
Resolving the Biblical/scientific conflict over the age of the earth is easy. I’m not a Christian. The Biblical evidence about the age of the earth is irrelevant.
I really like the new website—liked the old one, but this is crisp and clean and very friendly.
And BTW, thank you for providing that forum on Science and the Bible; the answers were thoughtful and helpful to a dialogue that needs more “thoughful and helpful” than it often gets.
– Rev. Gary Jon CooperScientist Gerald Schroeder uses Einstein’s space-time dilation to reconcile the apparent age of the universe with the six days of Biblical creation, and does so in a fairly compelling way. We tend to approach these questions from a geological and/or biological perspective and in so doing limit our abilities to understand the wonders of the physical universe. Geology and biology give us a tiny, narrow, constricted view of origins, one that is a little like trying to understand the world using only the English language, assuming that English holds all truth and reveals all knowledge. Space-time dilation tells us that space and time are flexible and malleable, particularly in times and places of great speeds and enormous gravitational influences. Schroeder uses the extraordinarily complex math of the General Theory to arrive at the following breakdown:
The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the “beginning of time perspective.” But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.
The second day, from the Bible’s perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.
The third day also lasted half of the previous day, 2 billion years.
The fourth day – one billion years.
The fifth day – one-half billion years.
The sixth day – one-quarter billion years.
The reality is that something less than 16 billion years (the number he used when he did the calculations—we now know the universe to be closer to 13.7 billion years old) and six days can be physically equivalent.
If, as many Protestants are, one is insistent on having a 6000-year creation cosmology (one that the Bible does not suggest or mandate, by the way), then it is possible to appeal to Quantum Mechanics, which allows mathematically for a completely formed universe to have popped into existence 6000 years ago, or two minutes ago, for that matter. The probablities for that to happen are mind-bogglingly small, but QM is funny that way, and the only real explanation in science for Big Bang is exactly that type of quantum fluctuation, that is, the only explanation for which there is any evidence. Nobody believes that the universe popped into existence fully formed 6000 years ago, but roughly everybody believes that it did pop into existence 13.7 billion years ago.
What you can’t have is both a 6-day creation story and a 6000-year-old universe. As a person of faith, I’m going to go with God’s 6 days and Einstein’s 13.7 billion years, since that is what the Bible and the General Theory give us.
Thanks for putting together a most engaging and enlightening discussion. Quite a bold step in a day of tension. The ability to have sane and reasonable discussions on topics of great (perhaps, ultimate) importance is a rare thing. I thoroughly enjoyed each viewpoint stated and look forward to seeing this kind of topic discussed more often.
John Nicholson
Southern Baptist Pastor
I wanted to take issue with Kevin Trenberth’s concluding remark that the Bible should not be taken literally. I’m not exaclty sure what perspective he is coming from, so I’ll try not to get too hot about it. I agree that portions (poetry, allegory, clearly labeled parables) are not necessarily literal. But the Jewish and Christian religions are historical. If God did not historically create the universe, He is not our creator and not worthy of our devotion. If He did not historically call out Abraham, and bring out the people from Egypt, they celebrate the Passover for fairytales. If Christ did not literally die and rise again, Christians have no hope of future resurection. I’m still unsure about the manner of creation, but those who use the Bible as the basis for faith must see it as God literally, historically working in history.
Joy
I think “Anonymous,” signed “Joy,” asks the key question: what parts of the Bible should be considered literal, historical accounts, and which should be considered poetry, allegory, parables, etc. As a scientist (observational astrophysics) and a Christian (non/interdenominational pentacostal) who has thought a great deal about this problem from both sides, I see no way to reconcile a fully literal interpretation of Genesis chapters 1-11 with what science tells us about how the universe works. I see good people, like Hugh Ross and Fred Heeren try, but come up with different answers. Starting in Gen 12, however, I think there is sufficient archaeological corroboration of Biblical events that even skeptics should take reports of Biblical miracles seriously. So Joy, I agree with you, that the Jewish and Christian religions are based on solid historical facts. However, I think Genesis chapters 1—11, are most profitably interpreted as theological foundations and not a strictly literal historical account of the history of the universe up to Abraham’s time.
This is in answer to Joy . . . who wrote,
” If Christ did not literally die and rise again, Christians have no hope of future resurection.”
This part of your remark was so touching to me, and I feel I would like to ask a question of you, if it is not too intrusive on your beliefs. But I wonder. . . why would it be so critical to believe that Christ must literally have died? Isn’t there always hope of future resurection in some other manner, through one of the other systems of belief on Earth, for example, or maybe via a system that we haven’t thought of yet?
I hope you will return and answer.
– DeborahDeborah,
In case Joy does not return to the blog to answer your question, you might be interested to know that the quote you singled out from her post originally appeared in a letter written by the Apostle Paul to Christians in Corinth (1 Cor 15:17). In Paul’s writings (which comprise a large portion of the New Testament), you will find an excellent explanation of why Christ must literally have died and been resurrected.
At the risk of getting off topic (we were discussing the tension between the time line established by a strictly literal Biblical reading vs. the modern scientific time line), I would like to ask you, Deborah, where your concept of resurrection comes from.
jpm
When you live in a Christian country, you’re surrounded, to some extent, by the concept of resurrection.
But I believe I’ve taken us off the topic. Please . . . continue.
Deborah
Gary,
The Short answer is:
Yes they can be reconciled. However, the earth is old and neo-Darwinism is a failed paradigm – or at the least, far from proven and over way extrapolated.
The long answer is:
The Bible And Science: http://www.geocities.com/vr_junkie/thebibleandscience.htm
(The best answer to this question on the Web)
Regards,
Mr. C
The answer is…. Both science and the Bible, the Word of God, are correct. God’s box is so large it is probably not humanly comprehensible.
We accept that God is in charge of the Universe, and our human minds can, in a very vague way, imagine it.
If we postulate that we were budded from other Universes, and that we are in turn budding new Universes, then our conception of God’s box suddenly goes out of control, with no limits that we can understand in a human manner.
His box is more like the latter than the former.
I personally do not bother to reconcile science and the Bible in human terms. I believe that both are correct.
There are other questions that are more important, such as our relationshup with our Savior that demand my full attention.
Just for the record, I am an Evangelical who believes that the Bible is the Word God.
Resolving the biblical/scientific conflict over the age of the earth is easy. The biblical evidence about the age of the earth is irrelevant to any rational inhabitant of this planet. Those that believe in biblical myths are basically irrational.
As a Christian first and foremost, and secondly, an anthropologist; I have wrestled with the biblical/scientific conflict for quite awhile. I think the one thing that many of us lose sight of is that the Bible is NOT a scientific textbook, journal or any other kind of scientific publication. The Bible is God’s word, not God’s science lesson—I really do not understand why the scientific and religious/spiritual communities must continually lock horns over the issue of the age of the earth, is Darwin’s theory more than just a theory, etc. My own experience with c14 dating is that it can be reliable, but it is not absolute. In fact the only thing that we have that is absolute is the Word of God—sorry fellow scientists, but the theory of evolution is still only a theory and has yet to be conclusively proven by any hard physical evidence (and science has tried hard for many years to find that hard evidence—but to no avail).
Science does not need to be reconciled to the Bible and the Bible does not need to be reconciled to science. This is really a matter of which came first, the chicken or the egg; and as a Christian who makes no apologies for being a Christian, Bibical truths are always going to come before scientific theory.I have considered this question and many others like it. The answer that has had the most impact on me is this: How old was Adam when he was created by God? How old would a modern doctor say that he was? The Bible teaches creation is six literal days, the words ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ are used. Keep your faith in the Bible and non-believing scientists will hopfully figure it out before it’s too late.
THE PROBLAM WITH USING THE BIBLE AS A FACTUAL SOURCE IS THAT THE HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY IS IN ERROR IN MANY CASES. THE BIBLE WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE A SOURCE OF SCIENITIFIC KNOWLEDGE BUT RATHER IT WAS TO SERVE AS AN ALLEGORY OR A METAPHOR. iT IS A COMPRHENSIVE STUDY OF HUMAN NATURE AND NOTHING MORE. TO ASCRIBE ANYTHING MORE TO IT IS THE SAME AS ACCEPTING GRIMM’S FAIRY TALES AS FACT.
I would like to respond to the following comment:
“Scientists estimate that planet Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Their estimate is based, in part, on the rate at which radioactive elements decay. But some Christian scholars and others say that the Bible tells us the age of Earth is only 6,000 years.”
The bible does not tell us that the EARTH is only 6,000 years old. It tells us that Mankind was created approx. 6,000 years ago.
Dr Rice of the Nature Conservancy really hit the key to the question. The bible is not intended as a science text book. It is God’s revelation to his creatures of His Nature. It tells us how we can relate to Him through His Son. It tells us how we can “arrive” at a place where we can begin to understand all things. Science complements that revelation by showing us what God expected us to find for ourselves, that as Creator He is awesome beyond our human ability to comprehend. When we try to limit God by either “our religious views” or “our scientific views” we are out of our depth as humans and we only limit our ability to understand His revelation of Himself. The commandment says you shall have no other gods before me. The depth of that is you cannot have because there is no god like the awesome Creator of all things. He cannot be comprehended by us beyond what He has revealed and most of that must be understood in faith. Though we may not be able to correlate the genre of Genesis 1 and 2 with the scientific evidence of the 21 Century that should not generate doubt but rather an excitement to ponder that time when the Living God will bring all things into perfect view.
Properly understood, there is no real conflict between the two “revelations.” In reading thru these blogs, I see lots of good points and lots of ignorance of the facts. Carbon 14, for instance, can not date organic remains that are much over 50,000 years, and so have nothing to do with dinosaur bones. Likewise, the presumption that the Bible is full of historical errors simply isn’t true. New archaelogical finds continually show biblical statements to be true, tho, of course, much remains uncorroborated.
My take on the age of the earth debate is that a consistent reading of all of the creation accounts in the Bible, taking into account the meanings of the original Hebrew and Greek, support the conclusion of an “old earth”. Namely, the 6 “Creation Days” of Genesis represent 6 eras of unknown length clearly much greater than 24-hours. The creation of Adam and Eve in the Garden, for instance, clearly represents months or years, even though it took place at the end of “Day 6”.
It is true you won’t get “millions” of years from the Bible alone, but neither do you get 6000 and only 6000. As an ancient text written in a language not designed for modern scientific accuracy, we shouldn’t expect the Bible to be like a science textbook. Nevertheless, the statements that the Bible does make are not in conflict with the record of nature, provided they are properly interpreted.
If you believe that the God who is responsible for the words of the Bible is the same God who created the natural order, then the two records must be in harmony. Only our interpretations of them can be out of harmony, which has often been the case.
It is only with modern scientific tools examining the evidence left behind in nature that we can determine how old things really are. The Bible simply doesn’t give that information, nor was it intended to.
If you are interested in reading my paper on the subject, go to http://www.konkyo.org/english/earth.html
The Bible was never meant as a scientific textbook, since its main purpose is to convey spiritual truths. However, the article Day-Age Genesis One Interpretation gives a reasonable explanation of the Genesis text that fits the scientific record of the earth’s history.
Thank you for this good question. As a conservative Protestant theologian, I am very content with the “day-age” view of the creation account in Genesis. This interpretation developed during the last several hundred years, and was held by outstanding Christian scholars. The Hebrew word for “day” can be translated several ways in the Old Testament, including “an undefined period of activity.” Since God’s time is not limited as ours is, several billion years is as a moment to him.
Many excellent books have been written to defend and explain this view, and I recommend them. Here are some recent ones by scholars Hugh Ross, Fuzale Rana, and Kenneth Samples: “A Matter of Days,” “Who Was Adam?”, and “Origins of Life.” These books provide much reliable scientific information and biblical study showing the harmony of these two fields of study.
John A. Battle, Th.D.
There is no problem between science and the Christian Bible. First the Bible does not give the age of the universe or the earth. The 6000 yr.age came into existance not long (40 yrs) after the King James version was published and was calculated by two bishops (Scotland and Ireland) by using 20 yr. generations times the genealogical listings leading to the Christ. They ignore the early life terms and probable higher generation years existant up to the flood. Secondly, the Old Testament words used for father and son also carried the meanings of grandfather, great grandfather, et al and grandson, greatgrandson, etal and where the head of a clan or tribe was used it simply meant that the blood line was carried through a number of generations within that clan. Thus, their methodology was totally flawed. There are also gaps in the geneaologies in the Bible as much as 400 years.
As to radiometric dating, various blogs dealt with carbon 14 dating almost to the exclusion of the rest of the radioactive elements used today in dating. First, carbon 14 is not usable for rocks. It is accurate to about 14,000 years beyond which it can only be used to sequence and then only to about 25-30,000 years and we’re talking about organic samples. As to the other elements which can be used they are scaled for application into billions. An excellent treatment of those used and the methodology to preclude errors go to www.reasons.org and search for ‘radiometric dating’. The first item up is a 37 page document by a well qualified scientist.
Carl Shannon
When we were very young, our parents told us it was Santa Claus who brought us presents on Christmas. We were imbued with the spirit of giving in a way that our little minds could comprehend. I view the Story of Genisis and other Bible tales much the same way.
[I’m an advisor late with my contribution.]
The authors of the books of the Old Testament could only write what they knew, and it would have been pointless for them to have written what their contemporaries could neither believe nor understand. The important message was that we have individual responsibilities and we should behave in a just manner, and for that, those largely anonymous writers did a superlative job. You might even regard them as divinely inspired. But to demand that books of allegory should be interpreted literally, and that the final arbiters of that interpretation should be drawn from a culture (western Europe) entirely alien to the culture of their origins, strikes me as the height of hubris.
Genesis is a rollicking good yarn, and its authors did well to push it back in time far earlier than anyone’s imaginings. A few thousand years must have seemed like plenty to them (it is hard for any of us actually to wrap our minds around a concept like a thousand years, let alone a million), but they had no inkling that they were writing of a time when there was already a well-established civilization with its own history: China. If they had known about China, would they have pushed back Earth’s beginnings even earlier? Perhaps, but perhaps not. The age of the Earth is irrelevant to the message of the Bible: if you are looking for guidance, does the age of the Earth really matter?
Come forward to more recent times, and the Old Testament and carbon-14 dating fall closer and closer into agreement. The Book of Exodus, which supposedly describes events a couple of thousand years before Christ, gives a pretty good description of the eruption of Santorini as it would have appeared and been experienced in Egypt (a pillar of fire by night, a column of smoke by day, the destruction of Pharaoh’s chariots by tsunami, darkness in the middle of the day, etc). With C-14 dating, the eruption is placed at about 1540 B.C. You can’t get much better than that!
We have abundant reason to have confidence in all radiometric dating, not just C-14. One obvious area is earthquakes. From dating of rocks offset along the San Andreas, we can work out, over the last few million years, how rapidly the two sides move relative to each other: about two inches/year. With GPS, we can measure how fast different segments of the fault have moved in just the last couple of years. In some places it is about 2 inches/year, but in some it is less, as if the fault is stuck there. We have learned from experience that at such places, damaging earthquakes are likely.
Think about what the San Andreas measurements mean. We compare measurements made over a few years with measurements inferred over the last few million years, and from the differences, we work out seismic hazared. Our specific objective is to save lives. Our methods conflict with a literal interpretation of Genesis, but would God really want us to ignore our measurements?
I see no conflict between religion and science since the realm of faith and the realm of deductive reasoning do not overlap. Fundamentalism of any kind, however, has always been the enemy of enlightenment.
Gerard Fryer, Pacific Tsunami Warning Center
(These comments do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or the U.S. Government).
Actually, there are very good scientist who disagree with Carbon-14 dating accuracy and have done their own scientific investigations called the RATE project working both diamonds and coal. Please see: http://www.icr.org/rate/. I am not an engineer or scientist and have only recently looked into these areas. I have a math and software background. I would not dismiss people as crazy who do not accept 4 billion years as the age of the earth. Nor is consensus group thinking ever a predictor of truth. Instead, read all the information and be informed for yourself. Do not take the words of others as legitimate without your own study. The RATE project on Carbon-14 dating is not the only issue. There are fantastic problems with Cosmology today in Big Bang theory. Full blown galaxies are being found which the theory never predicted back to almost the beginning of time. There is no explanation of this. Finally, all scientist are humans and as such all are as fallible as non-scientist, either in a priori assumptions or believing in this worlds answers and buying into deceptions.
As a Christian, newly born, I sometimes think to many Christians actually limit the technology and knowledge of the Lord. If our universe is 13.7 billion years old, then G_d is at least that old – correct? What about prior to creation? Anyone get my point?
Geologist have stated diamonds formed over millions of years. Yet today, an inventor and entrepreneur is successfully creating diamonds without flaw, as beautiful and structured exactly as those found in the soils of this earth. They cannot tell the difference between his diamonds and those of Debeers. He creates these diamonds in mere days.
I ask any Christian, if men can do such things in a few days, then what of our Creator?
We need to consider a couple more things: the other clocks, and what God says about the ages. Carbon dating isn’t the only way. Ocean sediment, its salt content, potassium-argon-iodine measurements, meteorite content in rocks, slowing of the speed of light; a couple dozen clocks, not just carbon. Where are these references in such an emotional issue?
Second, Scripture says that we are to rest on the 7th day just as God did. How can we rest for a thousand years? Must be that the 7th day was a real 24-hr day. Interpret Scripture how God says to do it. Some days are literal and others allegorical, metaphorical, etc. Learn the difference.
Also, only if you know God will you accept the truth. Winning this debate means nothing unless you honestly open yourself to whether or not He exists, as the Bible and its believers claim.
The Bible and accuarate science do agree. The Genesis account states “In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. (Gen1:1). It does not say when the beginning started – it could have been thousands, millions or billions of years ago.
The Genesis account then says plants and animals came on progressively over many “days”(ages). The bible again does not say indicate that these “days” were 24-hr days – each “day” could have spanned thousands of years.
I actually find Evolution more difficult to believe than the creation account as it (evolution) is just a theory that is not proven. Evolution can not be regarded as accurate science.