Several years ago a Christian astrophysicist gave an interesting lecture which evoked an extended discussion. In a conclusion that may have implications for today, especially for discussions related to the “Big Bang” theory, the point was made that scientists have calculated that the world is approximately 4.6 billion years old, and the universe about 15 billion years. Some scientific evidence was used to show how the figures of 4.6 and 15 billion years were attained. When the speaker was asked to spell out in detail the exact meaning and implication of these figures, he specified that on the basis of the facts presented, the universe “could not be older than 15 billion years.”
The difference between this and the claim that the universe actually is 15 billion years old may at first seem trifling. But, on second thought, it may be a clue to a better understanding of the actual state of the “Big Bang” hypothesis. Saying that the universe started 15 billion years ago gives the impression that we know this to be scientific fact. And many scientists and nonscientists want it to be understood that way. But we don’t know this. Saying that the universe could not be older than 15 billion years gives us only an outer limit on the basis of certain facts. But other, additional facts may give greater or lesser limits.
Let me illustrate with a simple example. If upon entering a room we find an ordinary candle burning, we might ask how long ago the candle had been lit. Observation of the candle shows that it gets smaller at a certain steady rate. Calculation can then indicate that a certain number of hours ago the candle would have been of such and such a length. But which length of time is compatible with actual fact? It is obvious that the candle could not have been lit so long ago that its calculated length would be greater than the distance to the ceiling. This then poses one restraint on the time the candle could have been lit. But to say, then, that the candle was lit when it was as tall as the ceiling would be unreasonable. And not many people would accept such a claim. It is not difficult to conceive of other restraints that apply to such a candle. We know that ordinary candles are not made to have a length of some six feet. Therefore we would have to look for more restraints to come to know the original length of the candle and thus to calculate the time the candle was lit. We would not be able to say with certainty how long ago the candle was lit without some additional, factual input. However, when the owner of the house tells us that he himself lit the candle an hour ago, then we know for sure, because we have the testimony of the one who did the lighting.
The same reasoning applies to the calculation of the age of the universe. It could not be older than 15 billion years. True enough. The candle could not be taller than the ceiling, either. This means then that we are saying very little of factual import when we make the claim that the universe is 15 billion years old. Honesty and integrity demand that we specify that we mean that it could not be older than that. And just as we only attained certainty about the time of the lighting of the candle through the testimony of the owner of the house, so we can have certainty about the age of the universe and our world only upon the Word of the Owner, Who is the Creator , the Almighty God, Jehovah. What He says about the age of the cosmos is true. Whatever details or precision we look for in His Word, but do not find, may leave the answer forever uncertain. We are told all that we need to know.
This does not mean, however, that we can reason, as some of our scientists in the Christian community have done, that since the Bible does not give us exact answers to our questions, we can go to science to learn the exact details. Scientists cannot give us all the answers, especially not those related to questions of origins and the age of the universe.
We should be content to admit that we do not know, and cannot know the exact age of the earth and the universe. And there is no reason why we should feel that we ought to know, either. Only for atheistic scientists is there any urgency to arrive at such answers, because they seek an alternative to the only true answers to these basic questions. Why should we join them in their search for truth when we already have it? We need no alternative. What we have to do instead is to get on with the job of being good stewards of God’s marvelous creation which He entrusted to us.
Aaldert Mennega is a Professor of Biology at Dordt College at Sioux Center, Iowa.
