The following is a critique of the "Six Essential Doctrines Connected to the Age of the Earth" presented in the article Does the Age of the Earth Matter to the Gospel? and the Is Genesis History? Bible study.
1. God has accurately revealed the history of the universe and man’s role in it. To allegorize or de-historicize any of those historical events is to question the ability of special revelation to speak clearly about history.
A Christian can easily affirm the historicity of Genesis without affirming the Young Earth Creationist interpretative model. The majority of Old Earth Creationists affirm that Genesis 1-11 is historical. The disagreement between Old Earth and Young Earth interpretations of Genesis 1-11 lies in how best to interpret the six creation days (yôm [יוֹם]); the extent of the Great Flood; and whether or not the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are complete or telescoped for theological purposes (as we see in other biblical genealogies such as those found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke). Old Earth Creationists generally do not discredit the historicity of Genesis 1-11 or attempt to allegorize it.
For example: Dr. Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe) posits that the six creation days should be understood as six, consecutive ages (which is a primary, literal definition of the Hebrew word yôm). Conversely, Dr. John Lennox (johnlennox.org) believes the six days to be literal, 24-hour days marking particular points in history whereby God spoke a new facet of creation into existence. However, Dr Lennox believes that these days are not consecutive days of a normal Earth week, but are instead separated by a long, unspecified period of time. Both interpretations maintain that the creation days are literal and represent actual history, while at the same time countering the Young Earth Creationist claim that each of the six creation days are conservative, 24-hour days in a normal Earth week.
2. God created the entire universe fully-functional in six normal days. To greatly extend the length of time and significantly alter events transforms the doctrine of creation into a slow, indirect, and death-filled process; this, in turn, transforms one’s view of God and His nature.
Extending the length of the creation days does not necessarily mean that one believes God's creative act to be a slow, indirect process. By this logic one could argue that God's redemptive plan is a slow, indirect process simply because God did not move to end Satan once and for all in Eden. If God is truly sovereign, then why bother waiting? If God could deal with sin on the spot in Eden, then why go through the incarnation or the agony of crucifixion and death?
God exists outside of our space-time and is not bound by the limitations of his creation. Nothing in God's plan happens early or late. Everything happens according to his plan, precisely when he means it to. The creation does not get to dictate how and when God created; we do not get to place limits on God by telling him that he could only create in six, literal days or that he had to create over billions of years. God is the creator of all. He could have created the universe however and whenever he wanted to. Our role as his creation is to submit to him, regardless of how long it took him to create the universe.
3. God formed Adam and Eve in His image at the beginning, thereby ensuring His image would be reflected somewhere in the universe at every point in its history. If one places long ages before man’s creation, it means God’s image has been missing from creation for almost all of its history.
This is a bit of an odd statement, and more than a little concerning from a theological perspective. Even though humanity's role as God's image-bearers is vital to understanding our place in God's plan, it is not an essential element of the gospel. Nor is it a vital and/or necessary aspect of God's creative act in that the universe is (and was at the time of creation) capable of functioning quite well without us. The created universe is essential for human beings to exist, but we are not essential for the universe to exist.
Arguing that God needed to ensure that his image was reflected in the creation from the beginning implies that God created the physical universe and mankind specifically to make up for a deficit in his being–he needed to have something other than himself to reflect his image "at every point in history."
We must remember that the created universe was made, first and foremost, for God's glory according to his pleasure. He did not need to create anything at all. Nor did he need to create mankind to be his image-bearers–he chose to.
Furthermore, insisting that mankind had to be present from the beginning of creation in order to ensure that God's image would be reflected at every point in history downplays the fact that, according to the most literal, straightforward reading of the text, mankind was not created until day six. There were five whole days of creation in which there were no people to reflect God's image! If this were truly an essential element of Christian doctrine or the created order, then we would expect to find the creation of man on day one not day six!
Additionally, if we maintain that man's presence in creation was necessary in order for God's image to be reflected at all points in history, we must therefore also conclude that the universe was in some way broken for the first five days of creation as God's image was absent from creation until day six. Obviously, the creation was incomplete before the creation of Eve (ie. God's final creative act). But this in no way implies that the creation was incapable of functioning without the presence of a divine image-bearer.
Of course, the necessity of having something and/or someone to reflect God's image at all points in history is not an essential doctrine of Christianity, the gospel, or the Bible overall. Which is what makes this particular argument for the Young Earth interpretation so odd.
4. God cursed the creation as a result of Adam’s sin, bringing death and corruption into a very good world. To say that there were billions of years of corruption and death before Adam’s sin means God created a universe filled with death. This not only changes one's view of the fall, but of the nature of our redemption in time.
The debate over whether or not animal death was a part of God's original creation lies in how to interpret Paul's use of "the world" (kosmon [κόσμον]) in Romans 5:12. Does Paul here mean that sin and death entered into the created order through Adam? Or is Paul using kosmon the same way it is used in Romans 12:2 and John 3:16 to refer to the inhabitants of the Earth (ie. mankind)?
Nowhere in Scripture does it explicitly say that God cursed the creation with death on account of Adam's sin. (The Bible also does not explicitly say that animals died prior to the fall of man.) Romans 5:12 clearly states that death spread to all humans because all humans sin. Likewise, Romans 8:19-23 says nothing of the creation itself being cursed with death on account of Adam's transgression. Instead, we find that the creation was subjected to frustration (mataiotēti [ματαιότητι]) and decay (phthoras [φθορᾶς]), not death and decay. (To be fair, the New Living Translation does insert the word death into Romans 8:21 even though the word is absent in the Greek.)
The word mataiotēti can also be translated as futility or vanity (as seen in the Interlinear Bible produced by Hendrickson Publishers). This seems to be an allusion to what we see in the Book of Ecclesiastes which emphasizes the futility of a life lived apart from the knowledge of God.
Pathoras, the word translated as decay in Romans 8:21, can also mean corruption, or rottenness. Again, in the greater context of Romans, Paul seems to be referring to moral and/or spiritual corruption and the broken world-system(s) created by fallen human beings (ie. kosmon) rather than the whole of creation itself. Romans 8:19-23 would therefore seem to have less to do with physical death and more to do with the spiritual consequences of sin, given the overall context of Romans itself.
One final point of note is that Genesis 1 does not claim that the original creation was perfect. God declared the creation to be "very good" (meod towb [מְאֹ֑ד ט֖וֹב]). (You will notice that the original article makes a subtle note of this as well, though it does not go out of its way to draw attention to the distinction.)
God did not say that his creation was perfect, blameless, without blemish, spot or defect (tamim [תָּמִים]). He said that it was very good. Yet many people throughout history have attempted to shoehorn perfection into the text. After all, how could a good and perfect God create anything less than perfect?
However, when we impose our understanding of perfection onto God's claim that the creation was good, we are essentially judging God and his creation by our definition of what we think perfection should look like (ie. Heaven and/or the New Creation described in Scripture) rather than submitting to God's definition of what he found to be "very good" (that is: operating according to his will, plan and purpose).
If God gave an imperfect creation his stamp of approval and we attempt to change what God said in order to imply that everything was perfect according to our definition of perfection, then we are essentially telling our creator what he can and cannot do with his creation, rather than letting him define his own terms.
We must also remember that God created Satan and the angels who fell with him, as well as Adam, Eve and every other human soul, with the capacity to sin. They were not perfect in the same sense that God is perfect. Furthermore, anything God creates will naturally be less than he is in some respect simply due to the fact that God created the creation. A creature and/or creation cannot be equal to or greater than its creator–it will always be less than the one who created it. This is the nature of the creator-creature relationship.
All that to say, if God were to say that animal death was acceptable as part of his plan for this creation, then who are we to tell God that he is wrong for creating such a world? God is the creator–he can do whatever he wants to do however he wants to do it. He could have created a perfect world without the possibility of sin or any sort of death. Or he could have created a world where animal death was an essential mechanism for a balanced and life-sustaining ecosystem just as easily. Likewise, humans could have been created innately immortal or humans could have been created with the capacity to die if they were ever to sin and break fellowship with God (the later case seems to be the more likely scenario given what we see in Genesis 3:22-24).
In many respects, this topic in particular speaks volumes in regards to our fallen nature. We who worship and revere God hold his character in high regard. Yet, in our pious zeal, we may actually find ourselves guilty of judging God by our own flawed standards. It is therefore crucial for us to recognize that God's ways are not our ways and his thoughts are not like our thoughts. We must let God be the judge of what is and is not good, rather than ourselves.
5. God judged the entire world with a global flood, killing all land creatures, birds, and people. The idea of a local flood not only violates the history revealed in special revelation, but it denies the past reality of global judgment in space and time, thereby casting doubt on the universality of the judgment to come.
The theological bedrock of a historic flood is universal judgment and deliverance. The flood need not be global to be universal, so long as all human beings (ie. the only physical beings capable of committing sin due to their role as God's image-bearers) aside from Noah and his family perished.
Additionally, we must also allow for the possibility that the total destruction language found in the flood account could be Ancient Near Eastern hyperbole. We find similar examples of total destruction language used throughout Scripture (particularly in the context of divine judgment) as well as in extra biblical sources.
Again, the historicity of the flood and the authority of Scripture (Special Revelation) is not in doubt. The question is whether or not the flood should be interpreted as a global event given the ancient cultural and literary context of Genesis.
6. God providentially controls every moment of time and history, starting with the first creation and the fall, guiding it to redemption in Christ, and ushering everything toward the new creation. If the timeline of the universe is not the timeline of the Bible, then God’s providence is emptied of its meaning and purpose: it takes responsibility for billions of years of emptiness, silence, and death.
God's sovereignty and providence are not dependent on a young creation.
As previously stated, God could have ended evil in the garden. But he didn't. He allowed history to play out as it has according to his will. If God allowed for billions of years to pass before the creation of man, who are we to challenge his methods?
God is absolutely sovereign and in complete control of his creation–no matter how old or young the universe might be. His sovereignty is not dependent on the age of the universe. To argue such would be to lessen one's view of God by limiting him and his divine attributes in direct proportion to the age of his creation. This also creates a false dichotomy wherein one is forced to choose between belief in a sovereign, personal God or a deistic God based solely on the age of the universe; a young universe equals a powerful, sovereign God whereas an old university equals an impotent God, who is all but absent from his creation.
All that to say, belief in an old earth does not (or at least should not) change one's view of God's character, providence, or divine nature. Likewise an old earth does not threaten the core doctrines of Christian theology or the gospel message. The theological foundation of the Genesis creation account is that God created the universe. The particulars of how and when he created remain open to discussion. The most important thing to remember is that it was God who created.
