Big Bang vs. Six-Day Creation: Old and Young Earth Views

Introduction

Man knows that the universe exists; however, his curiosity has not allowed him to dwell on this knowledge alone. Throughout his brief history on this planet, man has struggled to understand his "place in this universe, and furthermore, the place of the universe itself" (LaRocco & Rothstein, n.d.). For ages, he has attempted to find answers about the age of the universe, as well as about the origins of matter and the greater cosmos. In his quest, man has moved from the mystical beginnings of earth's origin to the development of scientific theories, some of which have only made the subject more complex and intriguing.

Man's continued interest in the subject has led to the emergence of two cadres of creationists: the young-earth creationists, who posit that earth was created by a supernatural being over a span of six days thousands of years ago; and the old-earth creationists, who hold that the universe resulted from a great chaotic explosion that occurred billions of years ago. Understanding both positions — and the points on which they agree and diverge — is essential to appreciating one of humanity's oldest and most persistent intellectual debates.

Old-Earth View: The Big Bang

More than five billion years ago, a chaotic explosion referred to as the Big Bang struck the then 10–20-billion-year-old embryonic universe, causing matter and space within it to begin expanding (LaRocco & Rothstein, n.d.). The Big Bang was, however, not like any ordinary explosion. It was more of an explosion of space itself, causing particles of matter — all of which were originally compressed together into a tiny ball — to rush away from each other at tremendous speed (LaRocco & Rothstein, n.d.).

The planets and galaxies were separated from each other as a result, and thanks to the continuing expansion of the universe, they continue to move farther apart in what is known as the Red Shift phenomenon (LaRocco & Rothstein, n.d.). The forces involved were so immense that some of the matter underwent thermonuclear reactions to form the sun, while other matter coalesced into the planets. Old-earth creationists align this account with the Genesis narrative by interpreting the days of creation as long, indefinite periods rather than literal 24-hour days.

Young-Earth View: Six-Day Creation

The young-earth view derives from a literal reading of the creation account found in the Holy Scriptures. According to this perspective, earth and everything in it was created in six consecutive 24-hour days, totaling 144 hours (Dean, 2003). When proper allowances are made for the Old Testament genealogies, the earth can reasonably be said to have come into existence between 10,000 and 20,000 years ago (Dean, 2003).

Young-earth creationists posit that the universe existed from the very beginning, although it was initially formless and empty (Dean, 2003). Over the first three days of creation, the Creator focused on producing form by making separations: between land and plants, sky and sea, and night and day (Dean, 2003). He then spent the final three days filling these forms — creating plant-eating animals for the land, fish for the sea, birds for the sky, the moon for the night, and the sun for the day (Dean, 2003). This young-earth creationist framework treats the Genesis account as a precise historical record rather than a literary or allegorical text.

Points of Agreement

Old-earth and young-earth creationists agree on several significant points, the most important of which are discussed below.

Creation Ex Nihilo

Both sides believe that, a finite time ago, a supernatural being created the universe out of nothing and produced all animals as well as humans as genetically distinct forms of life (Landgraf, 2011). Both accounts posit that God created every kind of life as an entirely new entity, and did not rely on modifying older life forms to produce new ones — a process known as theistic evolution.

Opposition to Naturalism

Both accounts are opposed to naturalism and view it as a foundational presupposition of the theory of evolution. Both sides observe that the entire concept of evolution would, in the absence of a naturalistic bias, lose its credibility (Landgraf, 2011).

Opposition to Macroevolution

Both accounts reject the theory of common ancestry, denying that all life forms resulted from purely natural processes unaided by any supernatural action (Landgraf, 2011; Taylor, 2008). To this end, both accounts reject the idea that all forms of life are connected to a common ancestor — as a tree is connected to a single root and trunk — and instead affirm that living things display a high degree of diversity, much like a forest containing thousands of distinct tree species (Landgraf, 2011). Both accounts, however, support the concept of microevolution and use it to explain minor changes observed among different life forms (Landgraf, 2011; Taylor, 2008).

The Historicity of the Genesis Account

Both old-earth and young-earth creationists are evangelical in orientation and believe that the human race descended from Adam and Eve (Taylor, 2008). This shared commitment to the historicity of Genesis distinguishes both groups from purely secular scientific frameworks.

Conclusion

The origin of man, the universe, and man's place in the universe have been subjects of debate since time immemorial. The subject has become as intriguing as it is complex, and is today approached from two perspectives: the old-earth perspective and the young-earth perspective. Both accounts support the idea that the universe was created out of nothing, but they differ significantly with regard to the age of the universe and the timing of Adam and Eve's creation. Whether one favors the scientific framework of the Big Bang or the literal reading of a six-day Genesis account, both positions reflect humanity's enduring need to understand its origins and its place in the cosmos.

References

Dean, D. (2003). Is the Truth Out There: A Journey through Critical Thinking that Spans Man's History, Origin, and Place in the Universe. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.

Landgraf, K. (2011). No Bones about It: The Truth about Fossils and Other Science Myths. Mustang, Oklahoma: Tate Publishing.

LaRocco, C., & Rothstein, B. (n.d.). The Big Bang: It sure was big. University of Michigan. Retrieved June 23, 2014, from http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

Taylor, B. (2008). The Late Great Ape Debate. Santa Rosa, CA: Standard Publishing.