Dumb things we do

Jesus wasn’t crucified debating the age of the earth, but surprisingly this has become the hill to die on for some. If our goal is to persuade people to accept the validity of the Bible and believe in Jesus, I’m unconvinced that arguing about the age of the earth is productive -- we need to ask ourselves, do we want to lead people to Jesus or do we want to drive them away?

The argument over the age of the earth is pointless, in fact it is counterproductive to stubbornly insist we know better. We risk too much credibility when we stake our identity on asserting a definitive date and we ruin our reputation by trying to manipulate this inconsequential topic into something spiritual.

The Bible is inerrant and trustworthy. It has insights on nature, weather, nautical patterns, agriculture, ancient geography, and astronomy, yet the Bible is not a science textbook — therefore when we demand people agree to a specific age of the earth (which is immaterial to salvation) we do not draw people to the cross, we drive them away.

We need to remember the Bible is an inspired book, mainly about theology and worship. The Old Testament foretold, but withheld a specific date for “when” the Messiah would arrive. The New Testament predicts Jesus will return, without offering the exact date of “when.” A similar consideration is applicable regarding our opinion on the age of the universe.

Skeptics are right to dismiss us as anti-intellectuals when we misuse the Bible to make the case the universe is around 10,000 years old. The argument that the earth is only between 6000-10,000 years old seems disingenuous to me, I doubt our true motives; instead of proving the earth is young what we are really attempting to say is, “See, the earth is too young for evolution to be true.” Ouch.

Science isn’t the enemy of faith, agreeing the earth could be older isn’t heretical, instead believers become the enemy of faith when we make unsubstantiated conjectures about irrelevant topics that the Bible is silent on. It’s possible to disprove Darwinism, we don’t need to concern ourselves with guesstimating the irrelevant age of the world to address misguided and flawed evolutionary theories.

Instead of speculating on the age of the earth we should be asking non-believers, “Why is there a universe rather than nothing?” Why did life randomly “appear” and where are the supposed transitional fossils bridging the species?

We could also ask, why is DNA so complex and deeply encrypted with information, it obviously required intelligence in its design. We could also ask, why do we possess an overabundance of imagination & intelligence? Comprehending trigonometry or quantum physics doesn’t help us gather food, reproduce, or avoid the saber-tooth tiger. Our breadth of brainpower is unnecessary in the race for survival of the fittest.

Who really cares how old the universe is -- it’s not an ethical, moral, or legal matter and we are not defending the integrity of the Bible when we argue for something the Bible is silent on. That there is a universe which began with all the laws of physics instantaneously in place reveals a conscious choice was made to begin the cosmos, requiring a Creator.

Jesus seemed indifferent to the age of the world, nor did He compel us to debate it, instead He asked that we help Him save it. Arguing about the age of rocks doesn’t draw people to the Rock Of Ages.