This pages discusses how Old Earth Creationism (OEC) can be shown to be more consistent with the Scriptures than Young Earth Creationism (YEC).
The Bible Consistently Shows Us the Importance of Process to the LORD
One of the arguments that is sometimes made by proponents of YEC is that God could do anything and so He could have made the universe to “look old”, even though in actual fact it was only created a few thousand years ago. There is no doubt that God could do anything and He certainly COULD have done it this way. But if we reflect on such an approach, we can see that making the universe look old while the universe was not actually old would not be very consistent with the Story that we find in the Bible. For one thing, it would portray our Creator God as being intentionally deceptive. As well, it would not be consistent with how God is shown working throughout the Scriptures. From the Christian perspective, the Bible is a ultimately a story about Jesus – His creation, His working through history, His death, resurrection, and offering of salvation, with the process resulting in God’s redeemed people living with Him in the new creation (Revelation 21). This Story of Jesus in the Bible is then a story of process. The Israelites had to go through the process of slavery and the exodus to see the power and glory of God. The Israelites wandering in the desert was also a process of learning about God’s holiness and the consequences of unbelief. As Christians, we are usually called to go through the process of growing in sanctification after we believe. The Psalms often speak of waiting on the LORD so that we can go through the process of understanding Him better and growing more deeply in our faith.
Inconsistency of the LORD to Bypass All His Natural Laws
So it would seem quite inconsistent of our Creator God to not use the processes of nature that He had created and then somehow to bypass the natural processes so that the universe would “look old”, that star light or planets or stars would be created to look like they were from events billions of years ago when in fact all of these were created just a few thousand years ago. If all of a sudden God created everything to look like they had been through a process but really had not been through that process, this would be very inconsistent with what God has shown us in the Bible about He works. Such an approach would also bring up numerous theological issues. If God was willing to bypass the processes that He set up in creation, then why couldn’t God also have bypassed the suffering of Christ and then make it just appear that Christ suffered and died? Why would God not then just present us to Himself as His saved people if He chose to bypass the processes of sacrifice and sanctification that He has called us to? Such an approach of bypassing the processes that our God has created is inconsistent with the stories that we read in the Scriptures about how the LORD works.
Old Earth Creationism More Consistent with the Importance of Process in the Bible
On the other hand, the OEC perspective is much more consistent with the Scriptures because it is consistent with God using a process not only for our redemption, but also for the processes of nature that he created. From the OEC perspective, the LORD set up nature to bring us to this point in time where we could hear about the real suffering and sacrifice of Christ Jesus on the cross. The OEC approach also shows the almost unbelievable patience, depth, love, and creativity of our Creator in spending over 13 billion years to prepare for this point in the history of the universe where we can find salvation. After over 13 billion years of preparation, we now have the privilege of hearing about and obeying the One who made everything and then suffered and died for our sins so that we can live with Him in eternity. Although this perspective of billions of years of preparation time has not been a common understanding until recent times, from an OEC perspective the Scriptures coupled with the science of our universe leads us to where our only reasonable response is to bow down and worship in awe before such a magnificently patient Creator and proclaim, “My God, How Great Thou Art!”.
Solving the Mystery of Light for Day 1 and Day 4
The perspective of OEC as presented in the Day Age approach also solves a seeming inconsistency that some people notice when they read the Genesis 1 accounts for Day 1 and Day 4. For Day 1, the passage reads as follows in Genesis 1:3-5 (ESV).
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Then for Day 4, Genesis 1:14-19 (ESV) reads as follows.
And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
The seeming inconsistency arises from the reasoning that if the sun, moon, and stars were not created until Day 4, then what was the light in Day 1 that is used to define the Day and Night? Various theories have been proposed, but such theories utilize suppositions that are difficult to reason about from the text itself.
A more consistent approach can be found in the OEC approach of understanding Day 1 to be the light of the sun breaking through the initial dark clouds over the earth followed by Day 4 when there came to be a clear atmosphere where sun, moon, and stars were finally fully visible from the surface of the earth. This is based on the assumption of the Point of View of the descriptions being from the surface of the earth, as supported by Genesis 1:2 (ESV).
The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
The OEC approach is a consistent approach that utilizes the common sense understanding of the sun being the source of light in both Day 1 and Day 4 and uses the text from Genesis 1 to support this understanding.