Q: Earth is 6000 years old, or 4.6 billion?

According to the genealogy of the Bible, the age of the Earth is around 6000 years old. With the scientific evidence today, scientists have estimated the world to be 4.6 billion years old. Who's right?

I would read this article by Pastor Driscoll of Seattle, specifically the section entitled "How old is the Earth?" He writes:

The general scientific consensus based upon radiometric dating is that the earth is very old, perhaps even 4.5 billion years old. Some Christians have sought to refute this finding by declaring that the universal flood in Genesis 6-9 altered the earth's geology so greatly that the earth now appears old. But non-Christian scientists have countered by arguing that they have also tested rocks and meteors that have come from the moon and landed on the earth which also date to the same age as the earth, roughly 4.5 billion years old. Many Christians have disregarded radiometric dating as flawed and inaccurate...

In the end, it must be admitted that the age of the earth is simply not stated in the Bible and it may be young or old. Futhermore, both young and old earth advocates are inferring from the Bible a position that the Bible simply does not clearly state. It must also be admitted that the age of the earth is not a great concern in the Bible; as Augustine rightly said, it is not a scientific textbook seeking to answer the ever-changing inquiries of science, but rather a theological textbook seeking to reveal God and the means by which He saves us.  

It is also very important to read the 6 possible interpretations of the Genesis account. The account that Driscoll (and I agree it seems to make the most sense) is that of "Historical Creationism":

In this view, Genesis 1:1 records the making of all of creation by God out of nothing (or ex nihilo) through a merism of "heavens and earth," which means the sky above and land below, or the totality of creation. Since the word used for "beginning" in Genesis 1:1 is reshit in Hebrew, which means an indefinite period of time, it is likely that all of creation was completed over an extended period of time (anywhere from days to billions of years). Then Genesis 1:2 begins the description of God preparing the uninhabitable land for the creation of mankind. The preparation of the uncultivated land for and creation of Adam and Eve occurred in six literal twenty-four hour days. This view leaves open the possibility of both an old earth and six literal days of creation.

Summarily, the Bible's account of creation is compatible with the view that the world is 4.6+ billion years old.  

[Answered by Pastor HM]

Q: Does man have one less rib than woman?

A:  No, men and women both have 24 ribs, 12 on each side.

Q: Is it appropriate for Christians to use birth-control (e.g. condoms?)

A:  There is no black and white answer to this question as this is a matter of personal conviction based on Biblical values.  I will give you my opinion and explain why I feel that way.  But before I do, I want to make one thing clear: it is NOT okay for not married Christians to be use birth control of ANY type other than abstinence because you are not married.  If you aren't married because you shouldn't be having sex and thus no reason for a contraceptive! 

I personally feel that it is okay for a Christian married couple to be using condoms or other contraceptives (other than emergency contraceptives).  Let me explain.  A young couple who just got married may not be ready to have children but still wish to enjoy the intimacy that God intended for His [married] children to have.  Thus, the use of condoms would be acceptable.  In the case of emergency contraceptives, I will leave you to read Dr. Steve Tu's answer as he has done extensive research on the topic.  You can find his answer HERE.

In Genesis 9:7, it says "As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.".  I realize that it is God's command for us to have children and many of them, but a couple has to also face the financial, emotional and physical realities of life and the responsibility of raising a child.  If they are not at the point where they can do so yet, contraceptives may be used. 

However, I believe that if we deliberately hold back from having kids because we don't want to change our lifestyle or not spend your money on children, than we are not following God's command.  If you can, you should.

Also along those lines, if a married Christian couple was to "accidentally" conceive, it is NOT acceptable to abort or use emergency contraceptives.  As a matter of fact, not only is it not acceptable, it is sinful to do so.  The child has already been "made" and thus the Christian should take it as a blessing and take responsibility for the baby.  After all, God does not make mistakes.

[answered by Pastor KJT]

Q: Natural selection? Age of the Earth? Macroevolution/microevolution?

I'm learning evolution right now in biology, and I'm just wondering what a Christian's perspective should be on these issues...such as natural selection, the age of the Earth, macroevolution/microevolution, etc..are there things I learn that I shouldn't believe?

Hi friend. I understand what you're going through as I studied science during high school and university. I've written several previous posts on this matter, so please read the following:

1. Science Versus Christianity: Is science correct or should we depend on religion?

2. The age of the earth, evolution (including macro versus micro-evolution) and natural selection

3. In #2-3, I have a link to this useful article by Mark Driscoll. It answers most - if not all - your questions from a Christian perspective. At the end of the article, there are dozens of links that you'll find helpful. Among these resources are Internet resources:

www.answersingenesis.org/
www.icr.org/
www.christiananswers.net/creation/
www.discovery.org/csc/
www.iscid.org/
www.ideacenter.org/
www.origins.org/
www.reasons.org/index.shtml

I'm sure you have many more questions, but start with some of these resources. Take your time and digest them slowly. Above all, remember to continually rely on Jesus - who is the light of the world (John 8:12). Your friends/teachers/textbooks may poke fun of Christianity and how science has destroyed it, but this is a false dichotomy. You can be a follower of Christ AND a student of science. Don't let others tell you otherwise.

[Answered by Pastor HM]

Q: Science versus Christianity: Is science correct? Or should we completely depend on religion?

This is a massive question that cannot be answered in much detail on a blog such as this one. So please read the articles quoted throughout this post. In the meanwhile, allow me to explain several important points regarding science and religion.

1. The science versus religion debate is a relatively recent one. Read this excerpt from Kirsten Birkett:

There was a time when to question the existence of God in educated society was ludicrous. In particular, to see science as anything other than discovering the handiwork of God was not really even considered. Science was done for the glory of God, and to uncover the excellence of God’s craftsmanship. This was so obvious a statement that it was taken for granted.

This did not happen as part of a simple process from theism to atheism in understanding the world. The public shift in this direction came partly from misunderstanding the Bible, and largely from the propaganda of determined atheists who capitalized on this misunderstanding and managed to sway public opinion successfully. The pragmatic decision, taken so long ago, to leave first causes out of science has seeped through to become an (unjustified) absolute.

Science today is thoroughly naturalistic. The supernatural, we are told most firmly, has no place in science.

2. There is no real conflict between science and religion.

Birkett continues:

For practical reasons, it may make sense for scientists to talk about natural causes only, for natural causes are what they are interested in. What does not make sense is to turn this into an argument that claims that science therefore proves that natural causes are the only ones.

Science cannot incorporate supernatural phenomena, for whatever science can study and analyze is defined as natural. For instance, magnetism was once thought of as an occult force, but in becoming analyzable and quantifiable, in coming under the aegis of science, it came to be thought of as natural. In the nineteenth century it became very popular to try to verify the existence of spirits scientifically. People would set up scientific apparatus to try to detect changes in electricity or such things in an effort to find scientific evidence for these phenomena. If they had found such evidence, however, the thing would now be an object of scientific study. It would be part of the “real" world that science studies. It is no longer supernatural. It is just another, albeit bizarre, phenomenon of the world. If there is scientific evidence for something, then it is something in this world, and it is studied as natural.

Whatever is supernatural, if it is genuinely supernatural (i.e., beyond this world), then it is not able to be studied by the activity that studies this world. Science is unable to disprove the spiritual, for if the spiritual agency does something in this world, then the evidence for the spiritual agency is precisely the evidence for what is defined as a natural activity. Whatever science discovers is natural. This is not an argument. It is a matter of definition.

Pastor Mark Driscoll, in his book Doctrine, puts it this way:

There is no conflict between Christianity and science itself. This is because the Christian worldview, which believes that God created the world with natural 'laws' and orderliness, is what undergirds the entire scientific enterprise. For example, inductive reasoning and the scientific method are based on the assumption of the regularity of the laws of nature. . . . Without this kind of regularity, we could not learn from experience, including the experiences of scientific testing. This also helps to explain why in cultures where creation is said to be an illusion or disorderly chaos because it was not created by an orderly God, the sciences have not historically flourished; indeed, the scientific method depends upon the kind of underlying worldview that a creating and providentially ruling God of the Bible provides.

These authors argue is that science and Christian theology use different - but not incompatible - methods to study the world. This is true in all facets of human life: the method must conform itself to subject matter. For instance, you wouldn't decide on what to wear on your date the same way you would determine the answer to the math problem.

Dr. Kenneth Boyce, in his article Do Science and Christianity Conflict? writes this:

There is nothing at all inconsistent about maintaining both a scientific and a Christian outlook. I think that, in the midst of all the arguments over whether or not the two conflict, there is a deeper agreement between what science and Christianity have to say about the world, an agreement that is often overlooked.

Science, as we have seen, to be a means of finding truth, requires a certain faith that the universe manifests a deep rational order that we as human beings can understand. Christianity maintains that the universe was created by God to reflect His glory and that as human beings we have been created in God's image with the capacity to understand how it does so. And when we look at the universe from a scientific point of view, when we probe into the depths of reality, we find that the universe does seem to resonate deeply with certain structures in our own minds, such as mathematics and even some of our conceptions of beauty. We find that the universe is, in fact, a beautiful place, and that the laws which underlie it are both simple and eloquent. Einstein once remarked that the most unintelligible thing about the universe is the fact that it is intelligible. This amazing fact is perfectly understandable in light of a Christian worldview, however. And from a personal perspective, I can say that one of the things that draws me to science, is that through it, I acquire a new appreciation for the glory of God that manifests itself in creation.

3. The Bible is not a science textbook. It was never meant to be read as one. Driscoll writes:

The Bible in general, and the book of Genesis in particular, was not written with the intention of being a scientific textbook. Rather, it is a theological narrative written to reveal the God of creation, which means its emphasis is on God and his relationship with humanity and not on creation. Genesis is far more concerned with the questions of who made creation and why he made creation than exactly when he did. Therefore, as Galileo said, "The Holy Ghost intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

4. What Christians must reject is not scientific discoveries, but naturalism: The belief that ALL phenomena can be explained in terms of presently operating natural causes and laws.

Driscoll states: "There is total conflict between Christianity and scientific naturalism, which states the only true knowledge is that which comes through observable experiments. When natural science is the arbiter of all truth claims, religion becomes superstition and God is omitted from discussion."

Boyce calls this "scientism" and contends it must be rejected:

This position is known as "Scientism," and it is one that many in our modern western culture, either consciously or unconsciously, assume to be the case. Often, for example, we use the word "scientific" as a synonym for the word "rational." Something can only be proven, we think, if it can be "demonstrated scientifically." In our culture, science is often regarded as the final judge in all matters of truth. To disagree with science, is to disagree with reason itself. Despite its popularity, however, this position is false, for two basic reasons:

First, it is false because it is self-refuting. The statement "the scientific method is the only reliable means of obtaining knowledge of the world" is itself a statement which can not be known through the scientific method. By its own standards, then, scientism is a position which must be accepted solely on the basis of blind faith, and one which cannot be known to be true.

Second, this position is false because it contradicts many things in our own experience. How do you know that you are in love with someone or that someone genuinely loves you? How do you know that things like racism and the killing of innocent people are wrong? How can you verify scientifically that life is meaningful and worth getting up in the morning for? None of these things are things that can be verified scientifically, but that does not seem to make any of them any less meaningful or less knowable.

Let me just close by saying this: I am a student of science. I earned my undergrad degree in life sciences, so I studied neuro-anatomy, physiology, microbiology, pathology, etc. I've studied theories like evolution and met many people who believe that religion is stupid and that naturalism is the way to go. But I am a Christian. For the reasons listed above, I believe that my faith is reasonable and sound.

Besides the resources listed, I recommend Lee Strobel's Case for Faith. It has two chapters on miracles and evolution.

[Answered by Pastor HM, B.Sc.H. Queen's University]

Q: Two Creators?

Q: My friend says that if there is only one Creator, then God must have created the devil. I said that God didn't, and Lucifer made the choice of disobeying God, and made himself evil. However, my friend said that this must mean there is more than one creator. How do I answer him?

You are correct. God created all things, including Lucifer (his name actually means "light bearer" or "morning star" so his role was to lead the worship of God among the angels). Like human beings, God created angels with free will - the ability to choose. Lucifer became prideful and chose to rebel against God, so he was banished from God's presence (i.e. heaven). Today he continues to do his evil work by influencing this world.

To answer your friend, I suggest you read this post. Here is an excerpt:

If a person is asked, “Does cold exist?” the answer would likely be “yes.” However, this is incorrect. Cold does not exist. Cold is the absence of heat. Similarly, darkness does not exist; it is the absence of light. Evil is the absence of good, or better, evil is the absence of God. God did not have to create evil, but rather only allow for the absence of good. God did not create evil, but He does allow evil. If God had not allowed for the possibility of evil, both mankind and angels would be serving God out of obligation, not choice. He did not want “robots” that simply did what He wanted them to do because of their “programming.” God allowed for the possibility of evil so that we could genuinely have a free will and choose whether or not we wanted to serve Him.

Summarily, there is only one creator. Evil exists because it is - by definition - the absence of good, and not because there is an evil creator out there.

[Answered by Pastor HM]

Q: For English, there was this essay that I had to read and it states: Can a robot find God?...

...I was wondering if robots, or any kind of machinery, can go to heaven or hell? And even, can it have thoughts and doubts on its own creation? Because machines are man made creation, I'm stuck. Do you have any advice for me?



A: Well, this is a rather interesting one. Never did I think that I'd get to answer something to do with robots. This person may be asking me because my youth often call me "Megatron" due to a poorly explained nickname from fellow Pastor HM. (He subsequently gave me a Bumble bee figurine when our families went to watch Transformers together and told me that at least I had the heart of this fearless dude...thanks.). But I will try my hardest to tap into my inner philosophical side and answer with objectivity.

Now, this was not a question that derived an unanimous answer. Why don't you start by reading this article first. Click HERE.

Firstly, it is important to define what a robot is. According to How Stuff Works (www.howstuffworks.com), a typical robot "has a movable physical structure, a motor of some sort, a sensor system, a power supply and a computer "brain" that controls all of these elements. Essentially, robots are man-made versions of animal life -- they are machines that replicate human and animal behavior." (http://science.howstuffworks.com/robot.htm).
Basically means that unlike my Blackberry which is simply a machine, a robot has a programmable brain that moves a body.

Secondly, I think we need to identify what it means by finding God. Anyone (or any technologically advanced robot in this case), can have the sense of a higher being. You can see this in the case of humans as they struggle to find God or a God. However, there is a difference between finding God and knowing Him through having a relationship with Him.

You are right to point out the fact that humans are created by God and robots are created by humans. Our creator wishes for us to know Him by communing with Him through prayer and community. We have the capacity to do this as it is God ordained. Robots on the other hand, even if they are programmed to have this relationship, cannot have an authentic relationship with God simply because it is not in His will. Through their technology, they can understand God, they can know that there is a God out there, they can even have a sense of closeness to God...but those "feelings" are not real as they are pre-set by their human inventor.

To address the issue of heaven or hell for robots, we need to understand the WAY in which someone gets into heaven or hell. Insert Jesus Christ here. Christ came to die on the cross for the sins of humans. He is the ultimate and final sacrifice in the sacrificial system in atonement of our sin (atonement means forgiveness). Christ came to die for humanity...and not for the creation from humanity.

To further that point...our eternal life (salvation) comes after we have finished living this one. As in, when we die, we'll go to heaven. However, robots don't have the capacity to die because they don't live. Either they are retired because of mechanical problems, or they are fixed so that they can continue on.

I think the article above gives a good philosophical answer on how, when and why robots can have a relationship with God. They may be programmed to feel like a human, act like a human, and even have a conscience like a human. But ultimately, they are just imitations of humanity. They don't possess a soul, they don't possess a true sense of right and wrong (because those just programmed into their being). Robots are unable to truly have a relationship with God through the understanding and salvation of Jesus Christ.


[answered by Pastor KJT]

Q: Before we were made to flesh, where were we?

"...We all are created to have an eternal soul, but before we were made to flesh, where were we? We had to have existed. We can't just be "unexisting"? We had to have existed somewhere before coming down to Earth."

It seems like you're describing Jesus who was "in the beginning with God" (John 1:2)! Indeed, our soul continues to live after our physical body dies, but we are not eternal as God is eternal. Scripture teaches us that we did not exist until we were conceived in our mother's womb, nor did come down to Earth as Jesus did (John 1:9, 14).

Theologically, this doctrine is known as "creatio ex nihilo" meaning "creation out of nothing." God created the world (including human beings) out of nothing. John 1:3 affirms this: "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is the only being that has existed for eternity. Human beings have not. We were created by God; made from pre-existing matter' conceived in the human womb at a precise time in history.

[Answered by Pastor HM]

Q: Where did God come from?

For us as Christians, the Scriptural perspective of the existence of God is that He has always existed. The first line in the Bible makes this declaration that "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."(Gen. 1:1) It is a given belief that God is eternal, infinite, and that He was there in the beginning.

In Exodus, the Lord names Himself as I AM. Basically saying that He is. He exists.

As David praised God, he said these inspired words, speaking about His divine nature, recorded in Psalm 90:2: "Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God."

In the New Testament, the apostle Paul writes this in Romans 1:20: 'For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.' Not only does this passage speak about God's glory being evident from the very beginning, but He has given us the understanding about knowing His characteristics throughout creation and reasoning.

Even through philosophy, we can see that it is believable that God has existed right from the beginning of all things. Using the causation principle, we can see that things do not come out of nothing; everything has a cause, right? One might be led to believe that if this is true, then God Himself had a cause or was caused by something else. But this is faulty thinking because but if God needed a cause, then God would not be God, since it would have needed someone or something greater than He is to create Him. God by definition is the 'First Cause' and out of Him, all things were created (caused).

This original question does not really apply to God by definition of the nature of God. It’s a false assumption that God had to have come from somewhere; He is in a totally different category. Asking 'where did God come from?' is similar to asking what does purple smell like? Because purple is not in the category of things that have odour, so the question is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created, or come into existence, or are caused. God is uncaused and uncreated - He simply exists.

How do we know this? Well, it is widely accepted, even by atheists, that there was a time in which the universe did not exist and then a time when it started, either by God or the Big Bang Theory. If there was ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come to exist. (Nothing comes out of nothing :P) But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something or someone had to have always been existing and was not itself caused by anything else. We attribute this to the very nature of God. By definition, as we have said, God is the 'First Cause', and therefore eternal—not needing any cause.

For more on this, read up on some apologetics books or literature by Christian philosophers like C.S. Lewis or Alvin Plantinga.

[Answered by Jon, created by the Uncreated One]

Q: Are the aliens out there (what does the Bible say)?

The short answer is nobody really knows. As a big science fiction fan, I think they are probably aliens out there (and by alien life, I assume we’re talking about sentient, intelligent life-forms – and we’re not talking about angels). Now, Scripture doesn’t really mention anything about aliens in particular, but it does say God is a wonderfully creative being.

Psalm 147:4 says, “He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name.” To me, this verse sums it up. To assume such a creative God would only create human beings alone may be arrogant. I believe we’ll never know but there are literally billions of galaxies out there, so who knows what we’ll find.

Here’s something else we have to consider: Even if aliens do exist, we have to ask ourselves the question: “Can we even detect them?” We always picture these green skinny creatures with big heads and oval-shaped eyes and long fingers, but maybe there are creatures out there that we can’t detect with our ear or eyes or other senses. They may exist in our dimensions or perhaps they are too far away to detect. The questions can go on and on. But at the end of the day, it’s a mystery!

For more information, visit HERE.

[Answered by Pastor HM, who says go watch the new Star Trek film coming out in May. Lots of aliens there!]

Creation/Evolution Questions

[ABOVE]: Pastor HM in the Galapagos Islands, where Charles Darwin did much of his research for his book, 

The Origin of Species

Our last sermon in the Final Exam Series generated lots of questions.

HERE is an article by Seattle's Pastor Mark Driscoll that may help. At the very end, he has complied a list of websites and books that will help you tremendously as you study this controversial issue.