Skip to main content

Old Earth Aesthetics: Why Wait So Long?

I usually get a bit of flack from people when I post on social media about the age of the earth. It really does seem to rub Christians up the wrong way. So I'll air my opinions in the more acceptable context of a private blog post. And I'm no scientist of course. I am, however, a lover of beauty and, being a graphic designer, I understand better than most how aesthetics work and feel qualified to offer a non-scientific, yet entirely legitimate perspective on how we could help determine something like the age of the earth or evolution.

To my mind, the aesthetics of an old earth (and evolution for that matter) are all wrong. I mean, why would God want to create a process for creation that took billions of years? The heavens declare the glory of God means he always does things for a reason. Nothing that has happened has happened by accident, therefore the created order is somewhat revelatory. Less reliable than the special revelation of scripture, but nevertheless revelatory. Therefore the age of the earth surely tells us something of God. And if the universe is old, what is God telling us about himself through that long age? Or if it's young; the same question. I just can help but wonder why - if the purpose of creation was to create people who could enjoy his glory along with him - God would wait so long after starting the process, to create them. If God is a father to children, then surely he will have been full of excitement in expectation of them. Six days seems more reasonable to me than billions of years if that's the case. I know God's outside of time and all, but he can't not be so that's beside the point. Anyway, I reckon it's worth asking the question, what would an old or young age tell us about who God is?

I wouldn't say I agree with every comment Kent Hovind makes in the series you can watch below; his style is a bit old-fashioned and most people today will find him a bit cheesy. He makes a lot of 'dad jokes' and he reads more into scripture than a lot of modern Christians would which might be off-putting. But I do find the logic of his science and history very convincing. I think his videos are worth a little watch and this first one on the age of the earth is very appealing.

I know the modern-day Christian culture is prone to shove this topic into the sidelines and so many these days relegate it to the status of 'one legitimate possibility among many' without much significance toward salvation. But the more I observe the way the culture deviates from the created order, the more I am convinced it's largely because we don't believe the Bible speaks strongly enough into the realm of what we can know scientifically. Evolution is a dangerous lie that props up so many modern evils. Evolution loves and old earth. The Bible has absolutely no need for it. For me, the reasons are far more than merely scientific - but Kent Hovid does a great job at explaining scientifically how a young earth creationism can be very simply recognised using the very same evidence. I'm not a big believer in conspiracy theories, but if I had to put my money on just one being true, I'd go for evolution and an old earth EVERY time. Is the age of the earth more important to our faith than we think? As a student of scripture with a knowledge of how beauty works, the old age evolution model just doesn't cut it for me. It's just not beautiful. I'll write a bit more about why I think this in another post. But for now, enjoy (or not) the video below, and if you can stomach it (I love it and I know some others will, too) watch the rest. The second lecture on the garden of Eden, although somewhat hypothetical, is sincerely fascinating.


Popular posts from this blog

Does God care what you look like? Part 1: Yes!

Does God care about the way we look? Does he care about our bodies, our hairstyles or our clothing? Does he care about tattoos or a wonky nose - or perhaps a scar or physical defect? In my church, we generally don't care about what people look like. Black, white, fat, thin, fashionable, unfashionable. How someone looks might be a very occasional point of interest, but generally speaking, what someone looks like will not have a significant influence on our judgement or value of a person. Heck, even I managed to get away with leading a Sunday service in shorts without getting so much as a raised eyebrow. Whilst the modern day, western, evangelical church scene will be keen to point out that there are more important things to worry about than what people look like - taking a sort of "man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart" approach - the rest of the world is obsessed with personal appearance. Beauty is big business and hot topic All you ha

The Beauty of the Church

If we say that what we perceive as beauty is: the relationship between the moral and aesthetic dimension of a thing, beauty becomes eminently important and useful in that everything that is, is moral and aesthetic. This is why we can say that everything is beautiful. Thus, our understanding of how beauty exists serves as a framework of understanding of everything. The relationship between the moral dimension and the aesthetic dimension is vitally important. In fact, the aesthetic dimension depends upon there being a moral dimension and cannot exist without it. A moral dimension can exist without an aesthetic and actually, necessarily precedes and aesthetic. Yet the moral desires an aesthetic. And its value (beauty) depends upon, in large part, achieving an aesthetic expression (though not always, and not entirely). For instance, what good is the desire to be kind to someone (moral dimension) if the opportunity is never taken and the desire never acted upon (aesthetic dimension)? Or, wh

On Christian Freedom, Choosing Slavery and the Hunt for Beauty.

Lust Lust Lust One of my favourite records is called Lust Lust Lust. It's a wonderful album by the Raveonettes who I once described as being like Buddy Holly in a blender. And Lust is this melodic cacophony of reverb-soaked surf guitar drenched in a sea of thick, dense, beautiful noise. Anyway, the point is, how do you feel about that? Does that sound like an appropriate admission for a Christian, let alone an elder of a church? I mean - lust. Not just once but three times. If you know your Bible, you know that lust isn't something to joke about or glory in. This is the stuff you wanna flee from - just read 1 Corinthians. On the surface, it sounds so godless and unnecessary, right? But the thing is, if it's wrong for me in principle as a Christian to listen to something named after something deadly serious and sinful, well, that doesn't stop me from enjoying it. It's music, and it's exactly my taste, and I really enjoy it. So, is that a problem? I pose t