The age of the Earth-2: The Earth gets its first birth day

(My latest book God vs. Darwin: The War Between Evolution and Creationism in the Classroom has just been released and is now available through the usual outlets. You can order it from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, the publishers Rowman & Littlefield, and also through your local bookstores. For more on the book, see here. You can also listen to the podcast of the interview on WCPN 90.3 about the book.)

For previous posts in this series, see here.

For a long time, people were comfortable with the idea that the Earth and the universe might have been in existence for an infinite time and is undergoing repeated cycles of creation and destruction.

Things changed with the arrival of Christianity. That particular religion could not tolerate the idea of the universe occurring in cycles because that would mean that Jesus was dying over and over again for our sins, which seemed preposterous. (The discovery of sentient life on other planets is going to create problems for fundamentalist Christians as it is not clear how they would fit into the whole ‘original sin and Jesus sacrifice’ model.) So there had to be a chronology with a definite beginning and this acted as a spur to make calculations to fix the date of creation. Theophilus of Antioch (~115-183 CE), a convert to Christianity, provided an early estimate that the Earth had existed for 5,698 years until his time (Jackson, p. 13) and Julius Africanus (~200 CE) gave the creation date as 5500 BCE (Burchfield, p. 4).

These Christians based their calculations using an interpretation of the Bible (found in Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8) that held that the Genesis story of six ‘days’ of creation was a metaphor, where each ‘day’ represented 1,000 years. The total of six days of creation was interpreted as meaning that the universe would last a total of 6,000 years. The appearance of man on the sixth day of the Genesis story represented the arrival of Jesus sometime in the last 1000 years. These calculations, based as they were on metaphorical readings of the text, lacked a certain rigor.

It took until the 1600s for the age of the Earth to become really quantified, with scholars getting down to the nitty-gritty of calculating an actual age, with the Bible again being the main source of data, and the results obtained strongly influenced thinking in the Western world. I have written before of Bishop Ussher’s (1580-1656) calculation of October 22, 4004 BCE as the day of creation (see part 1 and part 2 ) but his was just one, and not even the first, of many precise calculations around that time that used various versions of the Bible and thus arrived at slightly different values that rarely differed by more than a thousand years.

Why there was such an explosion of so many calculations done in the early 1600s is a bit of a mystery. One suggestion is that people began to realize that if the Earth was only going to last exactly 6,000 years total, then the end of the world was quite near and hence calculating the exact age of the Earth was of practical importance. After all, if you knew for sure that the world would end in a specified year with the return of Jesus, then you could make appropriate plans, or so at least religious people think though I am at a loss as to what one might do. One finds the same kind of obsession amongst present day Rapturists. They work feverishly to look for signs of the end times because they think it is very near. People seem to be strangely drawn to the idea of an imminent apocalypse, as can be seen in the commercial success of films based on that theme.

The first Bible that had carried a chronological marginal creation date was published in 1679 but it was the insertion of the creation date of 4004 BCE and the dates of other significant biblical events next to the relevant sections of Genesis in the annotated versions of the authoritative King James Bibles in 1701 that cemented that date in the public consciousness. These marginal dates continued to be printed until the late 20th century. Ussher was not cited as the source of the dates and may not even have been the source since there were other chronologies, such as that of William Lloyd (1627-1717) who became the Bishop of Worcester in 1699, that also arrived at the date of creation as 4004 BCE. Since the latter was considered the foremost chronologer of his time, he may well have been the source of the date with which Ussher is now indelibly linked, although it is also possible that his calculations were strongly influenced by Ussher’s earlier work (Jackson, p. 30).

Whatever the original source of the date, the blame for leading present day fundamentalist Christians into an anti-science cul-de-sac from which they have never emerged surely must lie at the feet of John Fell (1625-1686), Bishop of Oxford and Dean of Christ Church College and the person who for some time controlled the operations of the Oxford University Press. It was he who in 1672 proposed putting the creation date in the King James Bible. If not for that, it is possible that the idea of a 6,000 year-old Earth may have remained a speculation, one among many, that could be interpreted away as science advanced, as has happened to so many other beliefs. But putting it in the hugely influential King James Bible raised it to the level of an infallible truth for many Christians because of their belief that if something is in the Bible, it must be literally true.

Western scientists at that time (or natural philosophers as they were then known) were mostly Christians and while they may not have been as convinced about the ideas of end of the world and Jesus coming again, they saw no reason to challenge the Bible-based calculations as to the date of creation. They took their cue from these biblical calculations and saw their purpose as trying to explain how life could have appeared and how geological forces could produce the features of the Earth, such as mountains and ravines, within that short time. This naturally led to biological theories of special creation and geological theories of catastrophism, a model in which sudden and violent upheavals produced major geological changes.

While some Christians then (and young Earth creationists now) may have seen Noah’s flood as the single major catastrophe that produced all the main features, other less Biblically-literal minded scientists such as Rene Descartes (1596-1650) and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) were willing to consider multiple catastrophes, with fire and water as the agents of these major changes, while still sticking with the biblical chronology (Burchfield, p. 5).

But with the Enlightenment, the desire for conformity with biblical estimates weakened, and people started devising theories of the formation of the Earth and the universe and doing calculations that were not explicitly linked to Biblical stories. These developments will be examined in the next post in the series.

(Main sources for this series of posts are The Chronologers’ Quest: The Search for the Age of the Earth (2006) by Patrick Wyse Jackson and Lord Kelvin and the age of the Earth by Joe D. Burchfield (1975).)

POST SCRIPT: Book signing and reception

Tomorrow (Thursday, December 3, 2009) there will be a short talk by me on my latest book God vs. Darwin: The War Between Evolution and Creationism in the Classroom, followed by a book signing and reception. All are welcome.

Where: Flora Stone Mather room at the Kelvin Smith Library, Case Western Reserve University
Time: 3:00-4:00 pm

Origins of religion

(My latest book God vs. Darwin: The War Between Evolution and Creationism in the Classroom has just been released and is now available through the usual outlets. You can order it from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, the publishers Rowman & Littlefield, and also through your local bookstores. For more on the book, see here. You can also listen to the podcast of the interview on WCPN 90.3 about the book.)

I sometimes hear the argument that Judaism must be true since so many people would not have been fooled by a scam such as a priest, on instructions from his king, creating their texts and claiming that they were of divine origin. I hear that kind of argument from Christians too who say that Jesus’s disciples would not have believed and propagated the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, an incredible story, unless it had really happened and they had seen it for themselves.

Those who think that their own religion must be true because it is highly unlikely that so many people could be gullible enough to be fooled by a false prophet’s claims should bear in mind how other religions began because each one has a similar incredible origin and they can’t all be true. So we have direct evidence that large numbers of people can be fooled in precisely this way.


For example, Islam originated around 600 CE and has a prophet claiming to be god’s messenger and receiving god’s sacred words. Recall that Arab culture was very advanced with highly sophisticated mathematics and science. And yet enough people believed his story about riding to heaven on a winged white horse to chat with Adam and Noah and the rest of the gang, and that an angel spoke to him (when no one else was around, of course) and revealed god’s words and intentions, which often coincided conveniently with what served his own needs.

The story screams out that it is a hoax or at best that he was suffering from severe hallucinations. And yet enough people believe it that now one in four people around the globe is a Muslim.

For a more recent example take the Mormon religion that came into being a little more than 150 years ago. Their founder and ‘prophet’ Joseph Smith claimed to have discovered golden plates that contained god’s revelations to him and enough people believed him that he was also able to create a new religion that is growing in numbers even now.

What is amazing about this is how obvious is the hoax that Smith pulled. After all, no one else ever saw the golden plates or the angels that he said appeared to him. The plates were supposedly written in some strange language that only he had the means to translate, and then disappeared after he had done so. He himself had a record of being a conman. And just as in other religions, there is a whole lot of wackiness in its mythology. Every element in this story screams out that it is a fraud. And this happened at a time when there were newspapers and other media that could spread the truth about him. And yet enough people believe this so that now the Mormons are one of the fastest growing religions.

The Mormon creation story is not wilder than any of the other creation stories of other religions but it seems so because it is not as familiar and the novelty of it makes it harder to accept for outsiders. With religious myths, familiarity breeds contentment, which is why children are indoctrinated with their religious myths when they are young.

Or what about Scientology? This religion was created in 1950 by its own ‘prophet’ L. Ron Hubbard and has an origins story that is as wild as that of the Mormons or other religions. It too now has quite a following. (I’ll write more about Scientology in a later post.)

If all this can happen as late as in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries with our advanced science and easy access to knowledge about its founders, it shows how easy it is for charismatic people to create religions using simple tricks to fool people into becoming believers and followers.

I think that if someone was determined enough and had some charisma, he could probably make belief in Santa Claus into a major religion. After all, many of the required elements are already in place. We already have enduring myths and legends about him. He has magical powers with his flying reindeer and sleigh and the ability to travel vast distances in a short time. There are already songs about him. Children already believe in him. What prevents him from being a religious figure is that adults deliberately disabuse their children of belief in Santa Claus as they get older. All it would take is for some adults to perpetuate that belief into adulthood for the religion to take hold.

In the cartoon strip Peanuts, every Halloween season would find Linus speaking about his belief in the existence of the Great Pumpkin, who would reward the child who had the most ‘sincere’ pumpkin patch. And every year, Linus would sleep in his pumpkin patch on the night before Halloween night hoping to catch a glimpse of the Great Pumpkin. Each year he was disappointed but after some sadness his faith would return. The late cartoonist Charles Schulz, creator of the classic strip, was an atheist and I think that this was his wry take on religion because, after all, what is religion except childish beliefs retained into adulthood, and what is religious faith but ‘sincere’ belief in the nonexistent?


POST SCRIPT: History of Mormonism in cartoon form