mrmj10cover1The blog fury over Dr. Bruce Waltke’s recent resignation from Reformed Theological Seminary is well-timed for the May/June 2010 issue of Modern Reformation.

All this year, we’re focusing on “Recovering Scripture” and in the May/June issue, the topic at hand is “canon formation.” But before you start reading about the Canon of Scripture, we think you’ll be interested in our Ad Extra department (where we feature articles slightly off topic). In this issue, we’re publishing an article by a number of Reformed scientists who take up the issues of the earth’s age and Scripture’s trustworthiness.

Here are the first few paragraphs from their article, titled, “PCA Geologists on the Antiquity of the Earth.”

How old is the earth?  Does an honest reading of the opening chapters of Genesis confine creation to six days a few thousand years ago, or does it allow for an origin of much greater antiquity?  These questions are hardly new.  Scientific assertions suggesting an alternate interpretation of the length of creation began more than 200 years ago, well before the days of Charles Darwin.  With a debate more than two centuries in the making, one might reasonably expect that Reformed scholars long ago resolved the issue. In fact, the much-sought resolution has proven elusive.  In 1998, the PCA commissioned a Creation Study Committee (CSC), made up of both Bible scholars and natural scientists, to consider the relevant Scriptures in light of the various existing interpretations and scientific evidence.  The report, submitted after two years of investigation, did not recommend a definitive answer, but did at least conclude that it is possible to believe both in an ancient earth and the inerrancy of Scripture. The statement below is extracted from the concluding pages of the 2000 Report of the Creation Study Committee.

Clearly there are committed, Reformed believers who are scientists that are on either side of the issue regarding the age of the cosmos.  Just as in the days following the Reformation, when the church could not decide between the geocentric and heliocentric views of the solar system, so today there is not unanimity regarding the age question.  Ultimately, the heliocentric view won out over the geocentric view because of a vast preponderance of facts favoring it based on increasingly sophisticated observations through ever improving telescopes used by thousands of astronomers over hundreds of years.  Likewise, in the present controversy, a large number of observations over a long period of time will likely be the telling factor.

The geocentric/heliocentric debate refers to a controversy starting some 500 years ago between two conflicting views of nature.  The geocentric position held that the sun, stars, and planets revolved around the earth.  In contrast, the heliocentric position held that the earth and planets revolved around the sun.  Several passages of Scripture appeared to support the geocentric view, and heliocentrism was considered by many to be a direct challenge to the authority of God’s Word.  Others recognized more than one possible interpretation of the Scriptures in question, and scientific evidence eventually persuaded them that the sun was indeed the center of our solar system.

In this context, it is important to recognize that science did not prevail over Scripture.  Scripture was and remains true.  Scientific evidence only served as a God-given aid in selecting the more accurate of two plausible, Bible-honoring interpretations.  The CSC report suggests we are at a similar crossroads concerning the age of the earth, but without sufficient evidence to tip the scales one way or the other.

The CSC commendably included several scientists, though none were geologists.  So what would a geologist add to the discussion?  As practicing geologists committed to the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, in keeping with Reformed tradition, the eight authors of this article maintain that the “large number of observations over a long period of time” mentioned in the CSC report have already been made, and the data are sufficient to unequivocally answer the question.  We also understand, however, the inherent difficulty that people have in assessing a vast body of scientific literature filled with terms and jargon that often require years of schooling in very specific fields to comprehend.  Such difficulties have landed even well read and godly individuals such as Martin Luther on the wrong side of these debates.  Luther addressed the heliocentric theories of Copernicus in his day as being little more than the pursuit of vanity since Scripture clearly speaks of the sun moving and not the earth.

In this article, we wish to provide our brothers and sisters in the body of Christ with a few general observations, some clarification on a common misconception about our science, and two specific examples that speak convincingly that God’s earthly creation has been around for a very long time.

To read the rest of this article in Modern Reformation, be sure to call 800-890-7556 and one of our customer service representatives can process your subscription or you can subscribe online.