Inverse of the YEC "Appearance of Age"

[BWV 1080]

Has anyone else considered the inverse of the YEC "Appearance of Age" (AOA) argument? As stated by the Institute for Creation Research, it goes:

Quote: Simply stated, the idea of "creation with appearance of age" means that when God created, those things which He created might superficially have looked as if they had a history. When Adam was created, he no doubt looked like a mature adult, fully able to walk, talk, care for the garden, etc. When God created fruit trees, they were already bearing fruit. In each case, what He created was functionally complete right from the start—able to fulfill the purpose for which it was created. Stars, created on Day Four, had to be seen to perform their purpose of usefulness in telling time; therefore, their light had to be visible on Earth right from the start. God's evaluation that the completed creation was "very good" (Genesis 1:31) necessitated that it be functionally complete, operating in harmony, with each part fulfilling the purpose for which it was created.​

So according to AOA, all the old-Earth evidence is "backfill" in order that a fully functioning universe is in existence after the seven literal days of creation.

The inverse of this is a creation that follows modern scientific theories (which of course we do not and perhaps never will have a complete picture of) that actually did occur in time and Genesis 1-11 is the "mythological backfill" that God inspired in the OT writers to give Israel, his chosen people, a sense of their place in His creation.

If the objection to current scientific theories is that it makes out God to be "dishonest" in what he inspired the OT authors to write, is He any less "dishonest" for creating a false appearance of age? Why is believing that Genesis 1-11 is a mythological "backfill" theologically suspect while believing that light from distant stars, geologic sediments etc. is "backfill" is unquestionably orthodox?

 

[Vance]

Yes, this is a good argument, and we have talked "around" this point before. YEC's will often, even in the same post, say that saying Genesis is not literal history is saying God is lying, but saying God implanted evidence to show age is NOT saying God is lying. A very strange dichotomy. It is perfectly acceptable that God created a false impression of history, and thus confusion, about the earth, but it is impossible that God created a false impression of history in Scripture because that would cause confusion.

Ironically, I don't even see the Scriptures as creating a false impression of history, because I don't think it reads as literal history AT ALL. So, the question becomes very easy for me.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

omphalos

 

[California Tim]

YEC's will often, even in the same post, say that saying Genesis is not literal history is saying God is lying, but saying God implanted evidence to show age is NOT saying God is lying. A very strange dichotomy.

Methinks you have your horses mixed up. Rather than argue the point philosophically, Let me post a few of the many quotes from various threads from the TE'ists who regularly use this "dishonesty" argument. It's not the YEC'ists who claim that if creation contains embedded history then God is dishonest.

4. God can not lie, and can never be a liar, and no one on these forums has ever said otherwise. What is said is that God can NOT have created the world recently because to do so would be to have created deceitfully, which GOD CAN NOT DO.

...we should always take into consideration the evidence discovered from nature, and be willing to adjust our fallible, human interpretation so that it fits with what God's Creation is telling us.

I do not think a young creation unfair, I think it would be God creating confusion, and possibly even being deceitful, neither of which God is capable of.

Oh, I agree completely. But I think that the belief that the earth is young is the most damaging part of YEC'ism to Christianity. Christians who accept that the earth is old, but just think God created progressively over time (as the Day-Age or Progressive Creationists believe) or that evolutionary development occurred, but don't accept naturalistic explanations, insisting that God managed this development "hands-on" (like the ID theorists believe) are not the problem, since these are not in dramatic contrast with the evidence we have from God's Creation itself.

It is Christians proclaiming that the earth is only thousands of years old and that a global flood occured within that time frame that is damaging to the message of the Gospel.

How do we know that if they look at the evidence given that they won't abandon this interpretation, leaving them with nowhere to go but reject the Bible entirely?

No, even when we realize our literal interpretions are wrong, and adjust accordingly, Christianity goes on, and people still trust the Scripture. It is only when the literalists hang on to their literal, but falsified, interpretation, and push it is the true interpretation in the face of the evidence that problems develop

...Then, when they study science and find it makes sense, they assume the bible is wrong because it disagrees with science.

About that last statement I'd like to clear the air once and for all. I know of no YEC'ist guilty of the mistakes you've claimed. As for me and the vast majority of YEC'ists here we NEVER claim God lied in his creation by "implanting history" as you say. While we REPEATEDLY acknowledge a difference of opinion with what a literal interpretation of Genesis and the generally accepted scientific community say, we have ALL stated it is the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY THAT IS WRONG - not God. Can you not see the difference? Or are you simply unwilling to present the argument honestly? One HUGE difference between the TE and YEC communities is the willingness to accept the general concensus of scientists regarding origins. TE'ists practically treat science as a gospel in an of itself - above reproach, while the Bible is brought into subjugation to its findings and theories. With that foregone conclusion it is naturally exclaimed that to disagree with this "science" is to call God a liar. What a stretch.

You're a lawyer - so whats the term used for creating an argument and then blaming the opposition for the argument you've created?

 

[Vance]

First of all, many Creationists from the date fossils were first discovered and the earth was discovered to be old have used the "God planted the evidence" argument. In fact, some have even said that Satan planted all that evidence. But, no, YECs have not made that type of statement here in many months.

But the OP is NOT saying that YEC's say that God planted evidence to deceive, but that God created the earth with an appearance of age, an appearance of a history that did not happen. This IS a common, almost mandatory, YEC belief, unless you just ignore all the evidence completely. Even ICR, one of the leading Creationist organizations make this "appearance of age" argument.

So, in response, TE's say that it is VERY unlikely, if not impossible, for God to create a world that not only looks old, but TESTS old and in every way "acts" old. The evidence is that this goes far beyond "maturity" and into appearance of an age that YEC's say didn't happen in the existence of things like impact craters or varves, etc. These evidences, if accurate, mean that God either did NOT create the earth recently or God created in a deceiving way. Since it can't be the latter, it has to be the former. Now, YEC's could argue that the evidence is NOT accurate, but the point is that if the evidence is true, those are the only two choices. And since we DO believe the evidence, then God can NOT have created recently.

Now, the only way around this is to show that the evidence is NOT true, and this has never been accomplished with even partial success. All attempts have been miserable failures. Honestly. So much so, that many YEC's HAVE resorted to the "God just made it look really old" argument.

This is where the dichotomy proposed becomes important. It is in response to THAT argument, that God created it to look old, not your argument that it doesn't look old at all. And, of course, the YEC's making the argument for appearance of age do not believe God is being deceitful, but they DO say, and you have said, that to believe God wrote of a history that did not occur is to believe God is lying. This is where the dichotomy is.

YEC's say: to believe God wrote about a history that did not occur is to believe that God is lying. This has been said numerous times by YEC's.

TE's say: to believe God created the world to look old when it was not (created a false history) is to believe God is lying.

The TE statement is in response to a very common YEC proposal, even if not your YEC proposal. But, for that proposal, the YEC's don't seem to see the parallel.

Now, what are the responses to those statements. TE's simply point to the fact that a figurative story is not an "untrue" story, for all the reasons stated in so many other threads. I think this is a very good response.

YEC's have two respnoses. THe first is yours, that it just does NOT look old, but actually looks, tests and acts YOUNG (we can deal with that elsewhere). The other response is that God was just creating in maturity, to have a fully functioning world. This does not work for the reasons stated.

 

[BWV 1080]

As for me and the vast majority of YEC'ists here we NEVER claim God lied in his creation by "implanting history" as you say.

So you reject the premise that the Earth appears to be older than 5000-10,000 years? If so then my argument has no bearing on your position.

While we REPEATEDLY acknowledge a difference of opinion with what a literal interpretation of Genesis and the generally accepted scientific community say, we have ALL stated it is the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY THAT IS WRONG - not God. Can you not see the difference? Or are you simply unwilling to present the argument honestly?

I have not questioned your honesty and I would appreciate you not questioning mine. Do you believe you can interpet Scripture infallibly? There is a big difference between and inspired, infalllible text and an individual's very fallible interpetation of that text.

One HUGE difference between the TE and YEC communities is the willingness to accept the general concensus of scientists regarding origins. TE'ists practically treat science as a gospel in an of itself - above reproach, while the Bible is brought into subjugation to its findings and theories. With that foregone conclusion it is naturally exclaimed that to disagree with this "science" is to call God a liar. What a stretch.

Throughout Scripture one can see that reasoned arguments that appeal to evidence are valued. No one is subjugating the Bible to anything, just testing a particular interpetation in light of evidence available.

 

[California Tim]

I have not questioned your honesty and I would appreciate you not questioning mine. Do you believe you can interpet Scripture infallibly? There is a big difference between and inspired, infalllible text and an individual's very fallible interpetation of that text.

<edited message>
I apologize for entering this thread.

 

[BWV 1080]

<edited message>
I apologize for entering this thread.

No need for apologies

 

[TwinCrier]

Just what does a "new" rock look like? It wasn't about creating a 'history", but about creating function. The chicken came before the egg. When Jesus turned water to wine, it was already fermented. God isn't bound by time.

 

[BWV 1080]

Just what does a "new" rock look like? It wasn't about creating a 'history", but about creating function. The chicken came before the egg. When Jesus turned water to wine, it was already fermented. God isn't bound by time.

Again, if you reject that there is a mountain of scientific evidence that the universe is billions of years old, the argument in my OP is moot.

 

[Vance]

A young rock would be one that doesn't have unecessary evidences of a history that did not happen. You are mistaking creating a world with functional maturity (which would be fine, I suppose) and creating one with entirely unecessary evidences of a past that didn't happen. Things which add nothing to functionality or useful "maturity". Things that could not have been the result of a global flood, but which are there, staring us in the face.