In our perpetually offended culture, it is seen as hugely offensive to call someone's views embarrassing. However, if my time in high school taught me anything, it's "don't dish it out if you can't take it back". Therefore, while I despise "hit pieces", and am very sad about the fact that I am effectively writing one here, it is with a heavy heart that I must denounce the popular apologist William Lane Craig.
Now, I have no personal beef with William Lane Craig. I believe he is a Christian, and even if I was his enemy, the God we both worship would still ask me to love him. Therefore, I would like to take a moment to offer my compliments to him. One doesn't become a well-known, and well-feared Christian apologist by being a moron. And so I must say that Craig's reputation precedes him. Indeed, in the early days of my faith, I looked up to him with starry eyes. I described him as a "nuclear bomb", simply because of how strong he is in his apologetics. His command of the cosmological argument is so strong, one would think he invented it, and when you consider that even atheists often admit he wins most, if not all of his debates with them, it is obvious that this man is no joke.
Sadly, however, he believes God is. Now, I will clarify, not explicitly. William Lane Craig, to my knowledge, has never been caught saying "God is a joke", or any words to that effect. However, he is on record mocking Biblical Creationism. Consider the following quote: "Yes, I’ve seen a comparable statistic that says that over 50% of evangelical pastors think that the world is less than 10,000 years old. Now when you think about that, Kevin, that is just hugely embarrassing. That over half of our ministers really believe that the universe is only around 10,000 years old. This is just scientifically, it’s nonsense, and yet this is the view that the majority of our pastors hold. It’s really quite shocking when you think about it." (1).
And so we see that William Lane Craig is knowingly unashamed to call out 50% of Evangelical pastors (and, by extension, a large portion of the Christian world) for believing exactly what the Bible says, saying that their views are "embarrassing". It would therefore be quite hypocritical for Craig or his supporters to cry fowl if I, in turn, call William Lane Craig's view embarrassing.
The difference here is that what Craig calls embarrassing is quite the opposite. The real embarrassment is the brand new view that the Earth is much older than 10,000 years old. See, historically, "Young" Earth Creationism was the unanimous view in both Jewish and Christian circles. In spite of the fact that old earth views did exist alongside the early Church, they existed outside it, not within. Augustine of Hippo called Old Earthers "deceived" by "mendacious" documents, while he reckoned by the sacred writings that "not 6,000 years have yet passed" (2). Before Augustine, Origen Adamantius likewise tells us that the Mosaic account of creation tells us that the world is "very much under" 10,000 years old (3). I don't even know of any heretics who would dare accuse the Earth of being more than 10,000 years old!
But obviously, these men were not authoritative, merely educated. Even though it was the unanimous view of the Church, right up until the 1600s, that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and even if the Jews agreed, that doesn't necessarily prove Creationism is the biblical view. Right?
While there is some merit to this defence, there are two main flaws. The first is that, given that these men appealed so frequently to Scripture, we must ask how they all drew the identical conclusions, even given their radically different backgrounds, and even different sects? The second problem is that, since we still have the Scriptures, we can open the book and see why they were so unanimous. The Bible indisputably tells us that yes, the Earth is around 6,000 years old.
Now, obviously it does not flat out tell us "the Earth is 6,000 years old". It would make our job easier if it did, since all we would have to do then is figure out when the prophet wrote this, and then ask how long it's been since then. If, for example, Isaiah wrote "the Earth is 6,000 years old", and we know Isaiah wrote around 700 B.C., we would know the Earth is now 8,700 years old. Sadly, it doesn't do that (though you can guarantee that if it did, Old Earthers would still weasel around it), but it does do something similar. See, the Bible contains what is known as "chrono genealogies". That is, the Bible lists how old each patriarch was when he begat each son. We see, for example, that Adam was 130 when he begat Seth. Seth was 105 when he began Enosh. Enosh was 90 when he begat Cainan. So on and so forth.
Of course, genealogies are the parts people tend to skip the most when reading Scripture, but this ought not be, because there's a lot you can learn from them. For example, when you add them all together, we see that there was roughly 4,000 years between Adam and Jesus. Therefore, since Adam was created on the 6th day of creation, effectively meaning that on Adam's 6,000th birthday, the Earth turned 6,000 6 days earlier, we can say that the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old. It's simple math. 4,000 years + 2,000 years + 6 days = 6,000 years.
There are margins for error. One is considered their age for the entire year between their birthdays, meaning if you turn 1 on January 1st 2000, you will still be considered 1 on December 31st 2000. So, we don't know exactly how old each father was when they begat each son. Thus, there is a margin of error of one year for each generation. But even that margin for error does not allow for the billions of years that Craig and his ilk believe in.
So it's obvious why the early Church (and the Jews) were so united in their view that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and firmly united against the pagans who believed in much greater ages (which, ironically, never seem to reach the billions either). The Bible could not be much clearer on this topic! But the question arises from this is why Craig and his gang refuse to unite with the early Church, and indeed most of the modern Church, on the Doctrine of Creation? Craig claims it's because of science, but this is demonstrably not true.
The first problem with this claim is that, as a Christian, it's not actually an option Craig is permitted to take. For a non-Christian, accepting science as an authority over the Bible makes sense, but a Christian believes Scripture is the infallible word of the Living God. And so to claim that science, which is not infallible, not authoritative, and not even fixed, should trump, or even cause us to reinterpret Scripture, is unbelievably inconsistent. This is an inconsistency we should not expect to see from a legend like William Lane Craig!
But what's worse is that science does not contradict a "young" earth. There is no scientific method that allows us to date the Earth, and there are actually more than 100 scientific reasons the Earth cannot be millions of years old (4).
This is where Old Earthers link arms with the atheists in more ways than one. First, is there some grand conspiracy of scientists dedicated to lying to the public? We can approach this from a number of angles, starting with the fact that it is entirely possible, even without the philosophical implications of the origins debate, for the scientific community to defend an obvious lie. Take, for example, the Great Chromosome Fiasco.
The Great Chromosome Fiasco actually began as good science. In 1921, zoologist Theothilus Shickel Painter analysed the number of chromosomes in a human sperm cell, and concluded that, since a sperm cell contains 24, therefore we must have 48 chromosomes: 24 inherited from our father, 24 from our mother. Painter's methodology was sound, and others who repeated his experiments got the same results. Using the best technology available at the time, the scientific community made an educated, and yet erroneous guess.
Now, you can't fault them for being wrong based on the best evidence available to them at the time. What you can fault them on is maintaining their error long after it was discovered to be erroneous. Textbooks from the time even show 23 pairs of chromosomes in photos, yet the captions still stated that we have 24 pairs. Scientists of the time preferred to bow to Painter's authority rather than the evidence before their very eyes!
Now, consider that the Great Chromosome Fiasco had minimal philosophical implications. The number of chromosomes man has does not matter. We could have a single chromosome, we could have a billion, it wouldn't comment on the existence of God. Yet, scientists still promoted an erroneous conclusion for 30 years, even in spite of evidence that a layman can see. If scientists are able to lie without reason, how can we say none of them are motivated to lie with reason? Especially since some of them flat out admit it. Furthermore, William Lane Craig is a Christian, and so he must acknowledge the reality of sin, and even the general enmity between God and the wise. Every Christian should be able to agree with the following:
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.
Why should they affirm it? Because their own Bible tells them! It's 1 Corinthians 1:18-29! So if you don't believe a conspiracy of scholars against the knowledge of God is possible, why even bother calling yourself a Christian?
But ultimately, there does not need to be some grand conspiracy, because Old Earth philosophy became entrenched in science due, in large part, to the deception of a very small group of men, most notably Charles Lyell. Lyell did not invent the idea that the Earth is older than the Biblical timeframe, but he did help solidify it.
The first thing to note about Charles Lyell is that he was, by no means, an honest man. He was very strongly motivated to lie, as he wanted to push his "anti-Mosaical conclusions". Indeed, in June of 1830, Charles Lyell wrote a letter to George Poulett Scrope, in which he laid out his agenda to "free the science from Moses". (That is, the specific science of geology, since up to that time, Creationism maintained its dominance in the Christian and scientific worlds).
Now, you tell me, does this sound like a man with a motive? It turns out, yes he was. Lyell would frequently fudge his figures in an effort to make geological features appear older than the Bible would allow them to be. As an example, Lyell calculated that Niagara Falls must be at least 35,000 years old. How did he come to this conclusion? In truth, nobody knows. See, Lyell claimed that Niagara Falls was eroding at a rate of 1ft per year. Thus, since the gorge is 35,000 feet long, it must be 35,000 years old! (5). But how Lyell got his figure of 1ft of erosion per year is anyone's guess. Even in Lyell's day, a local resident of 40 years informed him that the falls had eroded at a rate of not one, but three feet per year! Furthermore, the rate of erosion is well known to fluctuate. Aside from rates of up to 5ft per year having been observed, the rate is known to be slowing down, ironically reaching Lyell's 1ft per year now (6).
Now, the first thing to note here is that the actual rate of erosion fits quite nicely with Scripture's timeline. Furthermore, it does fluctuate, and seems to be generally slowing down, meaning we can safely assume that it both fluctuated and was generally faster in the past, further aligning it with the Biblical timeframe. But we can ignore all that and go straight for the jugular: Lyell did lie.
But his lies are not limited to knowingly inflating the age of Niagara falls. See, Lyell is responsible for entrenching the philosophy of Uniformitarianism into science. Uniformitarianism, in its simplest form, is the idea that the present is the key to the past. Or we could put it the way Peter, the Apostle, put it: "...all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." (2 Peter 3:4).
Now, let us take a moment to appreciate the irony of Peter's words here. Not just in this verse, but in the passage as a whole. See, verse 8 is a commonly misquoted verse in defence of Old Earth Creationism. And yet, the previous verses equate denial of creation and the flood with denial of Christ's return, which is hardly a sustainable position for a Christian. He's coming back, you can't stop Him, you better make sure you're ready for Him.
But coming back to the science, we see from the above that it, also, is not a pillar upon which Old Earth philosophies stand. Rather, Lyell's principle of Uniformitarianism is the trunk of that tree. But we've already seen that as good as it looks on paper, it doesn't work in practice.
See, if you accept Uniformitarianism, you do get ages of geological formations greater than the Biblical timeframe. If Niagara falls really has been eroding at a constant rate of 1ft per year since it was created, that really does give an age of 35,000 years. The problem is that by accepting Uniformitarianism, you have to reject that which has been observed, both in recorded history, and even in living memory. To put it as one Evolutionist did, "Lyell also sold geology some snake oil. He convinced geologists that … all past processes acted at essentially their current rates (that is, those observed in historical time). This extreme gradualism has led to numerous unfortunate consequences, including the rejection of sudden or catastrophic events in the face of positive evidence for them, for no reason other than that they were not gradual." (7).
So, what are we to make of Craig's embarrassment that so many Christians reject Old Earth dogmas? Simply, we must reject it as an embarrassing heresy. William Lane Craig is simply wrong to claim that the Bible's account is scientifically nonsense, but the embarrassing part is that, as both a Christian and as a highly experienced apologist, he has no excuse for not knowing it. In his anti-Creationist rhetoric, he has inadvertently called God's word embarrassing, while siding with very open anti-Theists in their explicit opposition to the Christian faith that Craig gives an otherwise skilled defence of. It is embarrassing that William Lane Craig does not believe the Bible he defends so valiantly, it is embarrassing that he is embarrassed when his fellow Christians do believe and defend it, it is embarrassing that he sides with the atheists he refutes, and it is embarrassing that he does all of this in the name of God. Therefore, as much as it pains me to say it, William Lane Craig, until he repents of this grave sin, is an embarrassment to Christian apologetics, and I make no apology for calling him out as such.
References
1. Craig, William L. - Creationism is an Embarrassment (video was sadly removed at some point, I would appreciate if anyone can find a version of it and contact me with the link so I can cite it)
2. Augustine of Hippo - City of God and Christian Doctrine, Chapter 10.—Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past
3. Adamantius, Origen - Against Celsus, Book 1, Chapter 19, circa 248 A.D.
4. Batten, Don - Age of the earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe, creation.com, June 4th 2009 (link)
5. Lyell, Charles - Principles of Geology, 11th edition, 1873
6. Niagara Falls Hotels - Rate of Erosion of Niagara Falls, Feberuary 6th 2015 (link)
7. Allmon, W.D. Post Gradualism, Science262:122–123, October 1, 1993