The young earth and the problem of Deception

One problem with taking the Bible at its word, is that a plain reading of it seems to present us with a very young earth.

- So how can the world (not to mention the universe) be a mere 6,000 years old? I don't know. About all I can say, is this; if the world is only six thousand years old, the universe isn't what we think it is. Or maybe a better way to put it is... the 'world' isn't what our theories say it is.

- The Christian shouldn't find this all that strange; not if he reverences God's word, and the testimony of the prophets. If Christianity is true, then the universe is not what the physicists claim it is. (Or not merely what they say it is.)

- if there is a creator God then the universe is not what the textbooks tell us it is. There is no room for God in the physics model; no room for a dimension outside the universe.
- if there are spirits the universe is not what it seems, or not what it is painted to be.
- if there are miracles the universe is not what it seems.
- if the Fall (portrayed in Genesis) really happened the universe is not what it seems.
- if God once spoke to the prophets the universe is not what it seems.
- if God created matter the universe is not what it seems.
- if there is a heaven and a hell, the universe is not what it seems.
- if man has (or is) an eternal spirit, the universe is not what it seems.
- if the Trinity is true... then the universe is not what our physicists imagine it to be.
- if the Incarnation really happened, the universe is not what it seems.

And so have I proved the world is 6,000 years old? (Or some small number.) No. But I think what I've said is true; and I think it's quite possible the 'universe' isn't what the learned think it is.

The critique of Christian liberals (and I'm sorry I don't have a better word for them) is likely to be their favorite; ''if what you say is true God has deceived us all, because the universe certainly appears to be 14 billion years old.''

- Well; that's a good and fair question I suppose... it's certainly been used to great effect by them. So let's look at it. Does God deceive men? (Is the universe we see mere appearance, and deceptive appearance at that?)

- All you have to do is look up at the daytime sky to get your answer. The sun certainly appears to be going around the earth. So yes, it appears that God does deceive men. (i.e. with the way He's arranged our habitation among the stars.) But has God in fact deceived men? Is God to blame for man's ignorance? Is God to blame for men's limitations? Is there any other way things could be arranged? We are on shaky ground indeed if we accuse god of deceiving men. God can do no evil we are told. (To really answer this question, if we could, we'd have to know what is meant by deceive. When men deceive they do so for personal gain, to exploit others, and so on. We can't attribute such motives to god. If god indeed 'deceives' (or appears to) men it might be for man's own good, or for inscrutable reasons of His own.

- The most popular views of physicists and philosophers keep changing. I think it would be foolish to imagine the latest views will be the final ones. (A book of recent years proclaimed 'The end of science' - I can't imagine him being correct.) Christian liberals used to insist Christians adopt the eternal model of the universe. A creation out of nothing was a silly fairy tale they declared. (Apparently they no longer take this line :=)

- Isn't it far more likely man deceives (deludes) himself? than that god does so? (Surely God doesn't need to help man in this task man is already so very fond of.)

Notes;
1. “We need always to keep in mind that the theories we currently believe to be true are just as falsifiable as the theories we look back on as having been falsified”
—Mary Hesse, philosopher of science, as quoted by Dr Steven Goldman in the Teaching Company series Science Wars, lecture 24; to which he added, “And the theories we currently hold to be true are as likely to be falsified in the next hundred years as the theories we look back on as having been falsified in the last hundred years.” He pointed out that almost nothing scientists believed in 1900 about the atom, the cell, genetics, space, time, the earth or the universe is considered valid today.' [found on c/e headlines front page]
2. Augustine said we must interpret the bible in terms of the 'science' of the day. (The trouble with this, is that it would have led to Ptolemaic astronomy.... and did.) This passage, so beloved by liberals, in fact proves the opposite of what they imagine.
3. Deliberate deceit is a nasty business; and so anyone would surely want to be cautious in assigning such a thing to the Creator. [Deceive; be false to; be dishonest with; cause someone to believe an untruth.]
AHD; 1. To cause to believe what is not true; mislead. 2. Archaic To catch by guile; ensnare.
a. To practice deceit. b. To give a false impression: appearances can deceive.
4. The bible does speak of god hiding his face from man.
5. Pro 25:2 [It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings [is] to search out a matter. (But what does this mean you ask? Hard to say.)
6. Ian Taylor says of Percival Lowell; 'His faith in the idea of intelligent life on Mars led him to dedicate the
last twenty years of his life to find proof by the study of the "canals" The proof never came but
he died convinced and was buried next to his telescope.' (In the Minds of Men/ch. 7.)
- I wonder if Hugh Ross thinks God deceived him. (If you don't know; Ross if forever claiming that if evolution never happened God has deceived us all... as it's that obvious. He says the same about the 14.234 billion years for the universe, etc. Yes, scientists of the past were often wrong, but the scientific majority of our day Cannot be wrong.)
- human beings are forever seeing things that don't exist... as we see through spectacles made of desires, fears and ideas. (The lens of which have been polished by long ages of desire and speculation.)
7. 'It is fair to ask, Why was Lowell so misguided? Certainly not because he was a crank. An astute businessman, proficient in a number of languages, a degree in mathematics from Harvard, socially accepted among both the scientific and business communities, he had credibility almost beyond measure. And yet he was so obviously wrong. There is little question but that he was committed to an idea. In turn his idea committed him to a fairly sizable financial investment for the observatory, which still functions to this day although not for the exclusive study of Mars. The idea and the investment then became master of his life and he spent his remaining twenty-two years totally given to the study of Mars. Interestingly, it seems that it was just this intensity of commitment that enabled him to see what he believed in even though the object of his belief did not actually exist. This is a psychophysiological phenomenon related to human vision and has itself been the object of study by psychologists for a number of years, although it seems that the results of these studies have not been applied very well to astronomers (Young 1971). Taylor/ch. 7.
8. I can hear the criticism this will get; "all right for you... you're not a member of academia, you don't associate in scientific circles... easy for you to suggest the u. isn't what it appears to be.'' All true.