Now, at face value, this idea seems so contrary to the consistent witness of Scripture that creation is a reliable and trustworthy revelation from God, that it can almost be summarily dismissed out of hand. However, proponents of this view give some biblical examples in which God seems to create with a false appearance of age, and use this to claim that it may therefore be true of the universe as a whole.{i} The following are the three primary examples I’ve seen suggested.
The creation of Adam and Eve
Many argue that when God created Adam and Eve, he didn’t create them as zygotes which then slowly grew to infancy, childhood, and eventually adulthood—he created them as adults.{ii} Since they were created “full grown” they bore the appearance of an age that they didn’t actually have.
The first problem with this claim can be illustrated by asking whether Adam’s and Eve’s cells and organs had physical indicators that they had been alive for twenty (or so) years. For example, according to this scenario God presumably created Adam and Eve with adult-sized hearts. But it doesn’t follow from this that these hearts bore the wear and tear of having been beating for twenty years—he created them brand new, not with a false appearance of age. Let me reiterate this: they would have appeared adult-sized AND brand new. The claim that being created as adults means being created with an appearance of age presupposes that size and age are essentially the same thing. This is obviously false.
Second, if the fact that they were created as adults indicated a false appearance of age, then we have opened a door we definitely do not want to go through. If Adam’s and Eve’s bodies bore a false appearance of age, we have no grounds to deny that their minds did as well. In other words, God may have created Adam and Eve with false memories of childhoods which never happened. And thus, there is nothing to prevent us from maintaining the same thing of our own memories. God, in other words, would be implanting false memories into our minds. I’ve never seen anyone suggest anything like this, and it seems so absurd, and so blatantly contrary to God’s truthful character, that I doubt any Christian would seriously propose it. But it’s unavoidable that this would be a possibility if we try to argue that God’s creation of Adam and Eve as adults implies that he created them with a false appearance of age.
Finally, the bodies of Adam and Eve are not here for us to examine to see if they really do bear a false appearance of age. But the universe is here for us to examine. We should always try to understand the unclear in light of the clear, not the other way around. We can’t employ what is, at best, a highly speculative interpretation of Scripture in order to deny the reality of the world around us.
Jesus changing water into wine
At the beginning of his ministry, Jesus changed water in several jars into wine (John 2:1-11). Wine is by its very nature an aged substance. It takes time to ferment. When Jesus made wine instantaneously out of water he either radically sped up the fermentation process, or he created the wine with the appearance of having experienced the fermentation process when it had not. In either case, the wine would have borne a false appearance of age.
However, it is not evident that the molecular structure of wine by itself indicates a particular age or appearance of age. The fact that alcohol is naturally produced by fermentation does not imply that if God supernaturally changes H2O molecules into alcohol molecules, he makes them with the appearance of having been produced by fermentation. Just as the previous argument equates size with age, so this argument equates molecular structure with age, which again is obviously false.
When Jesus transformed water into wine, He did not simply “accelerate” time. … No amount of time turns water to wine. Water does not ferment. Nothing in the biblical text forces us to conclude that God used the fermentation process. He did certainly add to the water whatever gives wine its unique flavor, perhaps its color, too. All we know is that the guests were amazed at its excellent taste.
Taste and age are not equivalent. For example, a Japanese distillery has found a way to make new whiskey taste like thirty-year-old scotch. Even professional whiskey-tasters could not discern the difference. Chemical analysis could, however. We believe that Jesus’ transformation of the water can be described as a transcendent miracle. He supernaturally “treated” the water to give it the enjoyable qualities of wine.{iii}
I think some people who argue that changing the water to wine indicates an appearance of age are thinking of a wonderful passage by C. S. Lewis about Jesus’ miracles of fertility.{iv} Lewis points out that the water to wine and the multiplication of bread and fish (Matt. 6:30-44; 8:1-13) are doing something in a different way that God usually does through nature. Bread is multiplied in that a single seed grows into a full plant; fish are multiplied by procreation; and water is changed to wine through the growth of grapes and fermentation. “Thus, in a certain sense, He constantly turns water into wine.”
Of course, it all turns on the phrase, “in a certain sense.” The point of these miracles, Lewis argues, is that it shows that God is the God of fertility, the God of the vine, “He is the reality behind the false god Bacchus.” God usually accomplishes these things through the universe he made, but he can also do it directly, “short circuit[ing] the process.” To suggest that in these acts God is creating something with a false appearance of age is to completely miss the point. The miracle of changing water to wine was a miracle of transformation, not one of aging. God supernaturally changed the molecular structure of the water in the cisterns into the molecular structure of wine. This doesn’t mean that God “sped up” the natural process of fermentation any more than when someone mixes water with dehydrated wine.{v} Moreover, as with the bodies of Adam and Eve, the wine Jesus made from water is not present for us to examine. We simply cannot conclude, therefore, that it bore a false appearance of age.
The budding of Aaron’s staff
In Num. 17, we are told that the Israelites were jealous of the special position God had given Moses and Aaron, so God had Moses take the staffs from the leaders of each of the twelve tribes and place them in the tent of meeting. The following morning, Aaron’s staff had sprouted and budded, producing blossoms and ripe almonds. However, the miracle here was not that God “sped up” that natural process, but that he brought a dead piece of wood back to life. All of the reasons why the bodies of Adam and Eve and Jesus’ transformation of the water into wine don’t imply a false appearance of age also apply here. And just like the other two examples, we don’t have Aaron’s staff to examine to see if it really does exhibit a false age. How do we know that, upon closer examination, the bodies of Adam and Eve, the wine made from water, and Aaron’s staff wouldn’t give evidence that they had been supernaturally altered? Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to conclude that God wouldn’t cover up or conceal such remarkable examples of his power by making them appear normal when they weren’t?
The trustworthiness of creation
None of the examples above constitute evidence that God creates things with a false appearance of age, and hence we have no grounds for asserting that he may have done so with the universe as a whole. The previous two chapters demonstrate that creation can be trusted to reveal the truth about itself, since God has gone to such lengths to tell us that it is a revelation by which he makes himself known to humanity. If this revelation weren’t trustworthy, it’s inexplicable why God would tell us that it is, unless God himself is a deceiver.
There is great danger in thinking that creation, or certain aspects of creation, is illusory: it leads directly to Docetism. Docetism was an early Gnostic heresy, and one of its primary doctrines was that the material universe is an illusion. The Docetists’ motive for this was that they believed the physical world was totally corrupted (i.e. fallen), and therefore only the spiritual realm could be trusted to reveal truth. Once they denied that creation could be trusted to reveal the truth about itself and hence about its Creator, they concluded that their actions in the physical world meant nothing, and they were thus free to sin and do whatever they wanted with their bodies. Moreover, since the physical realm was totally corrupted, God couldn’t have been incarnate in a real physical body. Jesus, therefore, was an apparition who didn’t really suffer on the cross, and who didn’t really die to atone for our sins.
Now obviously, young-earth proponents do not deny the doctrines of sin or of Jesus’ incarnation. They’re only claiming that a certain aspect of creation, its age, is an illusion. And their motivation for doing so is also very honorable: they are simply trying to be faithful to what they believe the Bible teaches—a motivation which would undoubtedly prevent them from accepting the Docetic doctrines mentioned, since these doctrines are so obviously contrary to the words of the Bible. Nevertheless, the logic is difficult to avoid: if we argue that one aspect of creation is illusory, then other aspects may be as well. This contradicts the biblical claim that creation is a trustworthy witness.{vi}
Objections and responses
Objection: This puts God in a box. God can create any way he wants to: why should we assume that it’s contrary to his inscrutable will to want to create, say, a car that looks rusted and dilapidated?
Response: God could certainly create in this way, but then if he told us that the car could be trusted to reveal the truth, he would be lying. If God created the universe with a false appearance of age, then how can we account for his telling us in Scripture that creation can be trusted to reveal his righteousness, faithfulness, and truthful character?
Objection: It’s impossible for God to create without some appearance of age. Any proposed “first state” of the universe can be assigned some kind of naturalistic history.
Response: This objection seems to assume that God’s miracles could actually occur by natural processes given enough time. Then, when God performs a miracle, he speeds up these natural processes. I simply disagree: while some miracles may be something that could occur naturally (the miracle then being in their timing; see Exod. 14:21-22), this is not the case for all of them. There are some miracles that could never occur naturally without divine intervention, so they wouldn’t represent a false appearance of age. Water in a jar will never turn into wine by itself no matter how much time you gave it. Natural processes will not bring a dead man back to life with a glorified body if you wait long enough.
It also seems to assume that the only reason histories have been assigned to various states or aspects of creation is out of naturalistic presuppositions rather than any actual scientific evidence. But again, this is not true. While naturalism does appear to be the only basis for affirming some things, this is not the case for theories such as (for example) star formation or the production of the heavier elements through several generations of stars. Creation bears witness to these processes.
Objection: According to this argument, God can’t speed up natural processes. He can only create by divine fiat.
Response: This argument does not say that God can’t speed up (or slow down, or change in any way he wants) the processes of nature at his discretion. It merely says that if he does, the objects acted upon would bear witness to his divine intervention. Remember, all of creation bears the mark of God’s handiwork.
Objection: The very nature of miracles is to make things different than what they appear to be.
Response: This is incorrect. Miracles do not change things while making them appear unchanged. Miracles change things while making them appear changed. Otherwise no one would notice them.
Objection: When challenged to perform miracles in order to prove his claims, Jesus often refrained from doing so. Therefore, the idea that God “covers up” his miracles is not unusual or unbiblical, and this opens the door to the appearance of age theory.
Response: First of all, Jesus didn’t perform negative miracles to cover up or counteract the positive ones he did perform. When he refused to give a further sign after multiplying the loaves and fish (Matt. 16:1-4), he didn’t make everyone who had eaten die of hunger just to make the point.
Secondly, I think this is a misunderstanding: I’m not distinguishing between God’s performance of a miracle and its continuing effect. Otherwise, we’re stuck in a bizarre scenario where God would essentially perform a miracle, and then immediately perform another one in order to make it look like he hadn’t performed the first one. Then he would tell us about the first miracle in Scripture, but not the second one, because he performed the second one in order to make sure that there’s no way for anyone to discover the first one other than in Scripture. But then when we recognize that the first miracle has no continuing effect in the world, we discover that God must have performed a second miracle (the one he didn’t want us to discover, remember) to cover up the first miracle. Again, I haven’t seen anyone suggest this, presumably because it’s completely ad hoc; but this objection would have to allow such a scenario.
Objection: God frequently uses deception to accomplish his goals. For example, he had the Hebrews wander in a seemingly random manner in order to trick Pharaoh into thinking that they were confused and could be easily defeated (Exod. 14:1-4).
Response: God never told Pharaoh that he would reveal himself through the route which the Hebrews would take upon their departure from Egypt. On the other hand, he has told us that he reveals himself through creation and its elements. Moreover, the Bible states very clearly that God does not, and cannot, deceive (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Heb. 6:13-20; Tit. 1:1-2).{vii}
Objection: The universe only has an “appearance of age” according to human methods of measurement. It’s these methods which deceive us, not the universe.
Response: This will be dealt with in greater detail in the next chapter. For now, I’ll just say that the Bible itself refers to the reliability and continuity of the laws of nature.
This is what the LORD says,
he who appoints the sun
to shine by day,
who decrees the moon and stars
to shine by night,
who stirs up the sea
so that its waves roar --
the LORD Almighty is his name:
“Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,”
declares the LORD,
“will the descendants of Israel ever cease
to be a nation before me.” (Jer. 31:35-36)
This is what the LORD says: “If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night no longer come at their appointed time, then my covenant with David my servant—and my covenant with the Levites who are priests ministering before me—can be broken and David will no longer have a descendant to reign on his throne.” … This is what the LORD says: “If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” (Jer. 33:20-26)
If the reliability of the “fixed laws of heaven and earth” are as certain and reliable as God’s promises, it seems evident that we can infer from their present operations to their past operations, and draw conclusions from them. This is all that’s necessary in order for us to affirm some of the methods which have dated the universe at billions of years. If, on the other hand, the fixed patterns of creation can’t be trusted to be consistent and unchanging, then, according to these passages, neither can God’s promises.
Notes:
{i} All other claims aside, this commits the “fallacy of composition,” where something that is true of the parts is assumed to be true of the whole. This can easily not be the case—if the parts are small, the whole is not necessarily small—so it must be demonstrated, not assumed, that the categories of the parts may apply to the whole.
{ii} Although this claim has been challenged; see C. John Collins (2003).
{iii} Hugh Ross and Gleason Archer (2001c), 203.
{iv} C. S. Lewis (1960), 140.
{v} Yes, there is such a thing.
{vi} Note that this doesn’t commit the fallacy of composition. I’m saying if one part is illusory, then, all things being equal, other parts (not the whole) may be as well. It should also be remembered in this context that the Bible claims that the whole of creation and every part of it testifies to God (Ps 8:1; 19:1; 104; 148).
{vii} Compare this with the Qur’an, which ascribes deception to God several times. For example, Muhammad was given a vision of the battle of Badr in which he and his forces outnumbered his enemies. When they got there, the opposite was the case, but they managed to win nevertheless. When Muhammad asked why he was shown a false vision, he was essentially told, “If God told you the truth, you wouldn’t have gone” (Sura 8:42-4, “al-Anfal”).