How can you deny the mountains of scientific evidence that points to the universe much older than 6,000 years old?
This is the common charge leveled against Christians who recognize that the Bible presents a created world that is young in comparison to the majority,
secular opinion that states the world is 4.5 billion years old. The person asking the question assumes that belief in a young earth is denying the obvious
facts of reality. Scientists work with tangible measurements that yields figures of billions of years for the age of the earth, not just 6,000. How can
anyone reject the conclusions of learned men and women, experts in their various fields, who tell us that without a doubt, the earth is 4.5 billion years
old and the universe 15 billion years old? Thus, it is concluded that anyone believing the earth is young is really portraying ignorance and ignoring the
However, the person asking this question tends to over look a couple of plain facts. First, any "evidence" must be interpreted. Rocks, for example, do
not come with little tags telling a geologist how old they are. Everything in the world pertaining to the variety of scientific fields must be interpreted
by the scientists collecting the data. A second ignored fact is that no one interprets evidence without a bias. By that I mean to say everyone has a set
of unquestioned axioms, or presuppositions, each person brings to the interpretation process. Some individuals may bring more unquestioned bias to the
process than others, but everyone has an unquestioned authority that influences their interpretative conclusions.
In the case of secular science, the vast majority of scientists have an anti-theistic bias. They reject, out of hand, any initial supernatural, creative
work by God. So the biblical revelation of God's creation of the world in 6 days, man's creation and even a global, catastrophic flood, is not considered
in the interpretation of evidence. Furthermore, the more hostile a person is toward God, the more adamant he or she will be in trying to explain evidence
in such a way that it does not lend credibility to the creation narrative.
Ultimately, the issue boils down to the source authority that informs the mind of the scientist making observations, interpreting evidence and drawing
conclusions. Is it a fallible source, the changing conclusions of secular science, or the only true, infallible source of information, the Holy Bible.
It is my contention that if the biblical record of Genesis is never considered as the only infallible source of authority of how one perceives the world,
particularly the world of the historical past, that person will always be in error with his or her interpretation of alleged evidence in our present day.
Take for instance the fossil record. Secular geology believes the various fossils represent a geological column that displays the process of life on earth
over vast periods of time. Oddly, the age of the fossil is determined by the age of the rock and the age of the rock is determined by the kind of fossils
found in it. This illogical circularity has created some unique problems for geologists trying to interpret the fossils found through out the world*.
However, a biblical perspective explains the fossil record as being formed by a catastrophic flood that destroyed all air breathing life on the planet
except for those protected in the ark. That biblical record will completely change how one looks at geology.
*A recent example is the case of Japanese archaeologist Shinichi Fujimura who hoaxed an ancient culture by burying fake artifacts and convinced the world
he had found the oldest proof of human civilization on earth. The primary reason for the success of his hoax was, according to the website Museum of
Hoaxes, "[is] the difficulty of dating stone implements. They can only be dated by the stratum in which they are found, meaning that it is almost
impossible to differentiate planted artifacts from real ones." The full story can be read here: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/fujimura.html