For the sake of others reading this thread, the "woman scientist" is Deborah B. Haarsma, currently serving as president of the BioLogos Foundation and formerly as professor and chair in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College (Grand Rapids, Michigan). She wrote
Origins: Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2011) with her husband and fellow physicist, Loren D. Haarsma. The book introduces the different Christian perspectives on the question of origins, from young-earth groups to old-earth groups. Although the original edition had a more narrow focus—it was called
Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, and Evolution (2007)—this revised edition expands that focus to include all of Christianity.
Yes, Haarsma is a Christian. She belongs to the same theological tradition that I do (Reformed), which is largely a conservative faith community. Although the young-earth view seems to be the majority opinion in Reformed (and Presbyterian) circles, there is a growing number of those whose commitment to Scripture and our doctrinal confessions (e.g., Belgic Confession of Faith) compels us to accept as trustworthy the authoritative, inerrant, sufficient, and perspicuous testimony of nature, [1] whose author is the same as Scripture—people like Arnold Sikkema, Tony Jelsma, Jitse van der Meer, Ard A. Louis, Gijsbert van den Brink, and others. Haarsma argues for the same thing, particularly in chapters one ("God's Word and God's World") and four ("God's Word and God's World In Conflict?"). She argues that there is not (and cannot be) any inherent conflict between God's two revelations, but that any such conflicts only arise from human interpretations thereof.
And that should not be a controversial opinion. It is shared by theologians from a range of Christian traditions throughout history. For example, Douglas Groothuis said something similar:
Truth ... is systematic and unified. Truth is one, as God is one. All truths cohere with one another as expressions of God's harmonious objective reality—of his being, his knowledge and his creation. Something cannot be true in religion and false in science (or vice versa), or true in philosophy but false in theology (or vice versa). There is only one world, God's world; it is a uni-verse, not a multi-verse. [2]
I suspect that she would take issue with your characterization of it as "loyalty" to standard Big Bang cosmology. As she has made clear in her own writings—which anyone can verify so no one should bear false witness—her loyalty is to the triune God of Christian orthodoxy, whom she regards as every bit the one and same author. The theological tradition to which she and I belong affirms the union of natural and special revelation as constituted by "God's one grand scheme of covenant revelation of himself to man. The two forms of revelation must therefore be seen as presupposing and supplementing one another." [3] And, as revelational of God, the testimony of nature is authoritative and infallible.
That, my friend, is the reason to take seriously the conclusions of scientific analysis. (And taking something seriously does not mean accepting it uncritically. The best science is produced from the fires of critical scrutiny.) God is the one author of Scripture and nature both; what he says in one place will not contradict what he says in another—and he quite clearly said that the universe is at least 280,000 years old (UGC 10214, a.k.a. Tadpole Galaxy). [4] This is a lesson that the church chose to learn the hard way with Galileo, and I see no good reason for learning that lesson the hard way a second time.
"It must be remembered," Galileo said in a letter to Christina of Lorraine, Dowager Grand-Duchess of Tuscany, "that there are very few men capable of understanding both the sacred Scriptures and science, and that there are many with a superficial knowledge of the Scriptures and no knowledge of science who would [gladly] arrogate to themselves the power of decreeing upon all questions of nature."
For anyone interested in the history of dating the age of the earth, I would highly recommend Martin Gorst,
Measuring Eternity: The Search for the Beginning of Time (New York: Broadway Books, 2002). As a writer and documentary filmmaker, Gorst vividly illustrates in this captivating and character-driven narrative the fascinating, centuries-long journey by religious figures, philosophers, astronomers, geologists, physicists, and mathematicians to discover the answer to a fundamental question at the intersection of science and religion: When did the universe begin?
If God is the one and same author of both nature and Scripture, then they are complimentary and will easily match up.
That is an irrelevant question. Determining whether God COULD do X does not tell us whether he DID do X:
"But," they say, "to God nothing is difficult!" Who does not know it? Who is not aware that things [which are] impossible with the world are possible with God? ... Certainly nothing is difficult for God. But if, in our assumptions, we so rashly make use of this judgment, we shall be able to invent any manner of thing concerning God as that he has done it on the ground that he was able to do it. But we must not, on the ground that he can do all things, for that reason believe that he has done even what he has not done. Rather, we must inquire whether he has done it.
Is God powerful enough to have created the world in six days a few thousand years ago? Yes. In fact, he is powerful enough to have created the world instantly last Thursday. As Tertullian observed, it's not about whether God has the power to do it but about whether he did do it. He's powerful enough to have done it, but did he? It appears that he did not.
Inspired, I believe. "The heavens declare the glory of God; the sky displays his handiwork. Day after day it speaks out; night after night it reveals his greatness. There is no actual speech or word, nor is its voice literally heard. Yet its voice echoes throughout the earth; its words carry to the distant horizon" (Ps 19:1-4).
---
[1] Cornelius Van Til, "
Nature and Scripture,"
The Infallible Word: A Symposium, by the members of the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Guardian Publishing, 1946), pp. 255-293. See also Camden Bucey, Jared Oliphint, and K. Scott Oliphint, hosts, "
Nature and Scripture," Ep. 240,
Christ the Center (podcast), August 3, 2012. (Accessed August 13, 2022.)
[2] Douglas Groothuis,
Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 79.
[3] Van Til, "Nature and Scripture." (It must be kept in mind "that revelation in nature was never meant to function by itself. It was from the beginning insufficient without its supernatural concomitant.")
[4] David MacMillan, "
Path Across the Stars,"
Medium.com, May 17, 2019.
