I've written a couple of blogs lately that have been connected to, or directly addressed worldviews. A worldview is a natural outgrowth of what one believes, and it determines the way one interprets the world one sees. It could be said that there are lots of worldviews depending on how you define the word, but I think it comes down ultimately two worldviews, three tops. (laughing here) But that would be a subject for debate that I won't fully address here.

In my thinking, one either has a worldview which is overarched by one's belief in the God of the Bible, or you don't. I often hear people arguing about the age of the Earth. Why is that important? I don't believe it's important in a soteriologic sense, but it's a crucial issue in the sense that it's a divisive issue for most of the world. What one believes about the age of the Earth is a reflection of one's worldview.

If you look at the age of the Earth, there are really only two possible ways that we came into existence. We either came here by the process of Evolution (random chance) or we were created by an intelligent designer. Since the theory of Evolution doesn't require an intelligent designer, (a god), Evolution is primarily the worldview held by atheists, though some Evolution adherents do believe in some type of higher power which had a hand in creating the universe. Creation is the belief that someone outside of the universe designed and created it. Neither theory has been proven, and both require faith to believe, hence they should both be regarded as religiously held beliefs.

I think any Evolutionist would concur that Evolution isn't possible without enormous amounts of time, though there are plenty of arguments against the theory, even by Evolutionists themselves, no matter how much time you throw at the theory. If however, the Earth is very young, we're left with only one concept, and that is "Special Creation." This is where the argument lies. If the Earth is the fifteen or twenty billion (or more) years old then Evolution is possible----theoretically. That makes a very old Earth very important to Evolutionists.

Here in the U.S., the age of the Earth question is dealt with as a separation of church and State issue. The old Earth view is pushed strongly because the Theory of Evolution, though unproven, is viewed as science, and not as a religiously held belief. It's viewed as "proven" science. For me that's a bit of a contradiction. Evolution is religion in scientific clothing. Some Evolutionists say it isn't science at all. I tend to agree. It gets taught as fact and mixed with science though, so that over the long-term, students can tend to be indoctrinated into Evolution, instead of educated about science, Evolution free science.

I know. I attended U.S. public schools. Every science class I took after grade school approached science from the standpoint that Evolution was fact, especially my high school and college biology classes. However, there's a lot of scientific evidence that isn't reaching students in American schools today.

The number of Natural Chronometers indicating a young Earth are approximately five times those that might indicate an old Earth. The largest portion of students in school today probably don't know about a single Natural Chronometer indicating a young Earth. What that means is that students suffer in this regard from an "ignorance deficit" of about eighty percent.

One thing that's important for students to realize is that all scientific data presented to them is interpreted through presuppositions. This requires a bit of mental acuteness to make the discernment, and probably time spent in independent research, but it's worth it. Someone might ask, "Just what are these presuppositions and how are they arrived at?" Carbon 14 dating could be used to explain the answer.

C-14 dating, used by scientists is the accepted way of determining the age of some types of fossilized remains. Scientists arrive at millions or even billions of years old when dating something and Christians wonder how that is possible, given what the Biblical account says. The problem is, C-14 dating is used under the assumption (and it's a biggie) that no outside forces, such as exposure to water at some point or pressure have affected the article being dated. It also assumes that over millions or billions of years that the rate of Carbon-14 formation has remained constant. That is by no means guaranteed and requires an assumption that can easily throw everything off. You may have heard stories about the same rock being dated to four billion years old, plus or minus four or five billion years. That isn't that far off, as such obvious mistakes have been made.

Another bit of information students need to know about is that while Uniformitarianism (to explain sedimentary layers) is thrown around as a fact firmly established, it is actually an Evolutionist presupposition. Uniformitarianism as a scientific concept has been seriously weakened by the observance of geologic features such as poly-strata fossils and the lack of erosion between strata.

The alternative to Uniformitarianism is Catastrophism. Catastrophism is recorded in ancient manuscripts (the Bible) and is backed up by poly-strata fossils, the fact that fossil clams in the closed position have been found on Mt. Everest's peak, by sedimentary rock formations and the fact that roughly ninety-five percent of all recorded fossils so far are those of marine invertebrates, etc.. This list is not comprehensive.

I've flown over high mountains in this country and you can see the effects that water has at some point in history had on any geographic location in the entire world and, though Evolutionary adherents are losing ground on the idea that there has never been a world wide flood, it doesn't have to be taught as "creation science." The evidence for a world wide flood is there. Teach the science and let students reach their own conclusions. The Bible will match up to accurate science.

Tons of misinformation and assumptions have to be waded through in the science classroom by today's students. Some teachers are still using information that has been outdated and discarded fifty or even one-hundred years ago, because they have "faith" in Evolution. For example, there are six stages of Evolution that would have to be necessary for what is set before us in existence. The stages are: cosmic, chemical, stellar/planetary, organic, macro and micro evolution. Of these six stages, only "micro" evolution has been observed. The entirety of the rest of the stages are merely assumed.

"Macro" evolution is the hoped for proof and the backbone of the Theory of Evolution, and there isn't a single, solitary shred of observable data to substantiate it. Not one iota. Evolutionists have been searching the fossil record all over the world since the theory was founded and.....nada. The observation of planets (Mars for example, moving occasionally backwards in the sky, viewed from the Earth) in retrograde motion has proven a huge setback to the theory of cosmic-evolution, beginning with the "Big Bang."

When I was in school I never once in my recollection heard that there were actually what are known as Limiting Factors that limit the possible age of the Earth. Factors like moon-drift, the decay of the Earth's magnetic field, the slowing rotation of the Earth or the amount of sediment build-up on the ocean floors. These are measurable scientific facts. Teach those and don't label them one way or the other. Let students take the information and run with it. What are Evolutionary scientists so afraid of. I'm not afraid of whether the Bible will stand up to the facts if they aren't labeled Biblical or not. The Bible can hold its own. Sheesh, God created science. (laughing here) Let people see it, only let's be fair. Let's not withhold information. Put it all out there without labels for student consumption.

I guess what I'm saying is that maybe instead of asking what the age of the Earth is, we would be asking why should students be indoctrinated into a prejudicial system of thinking. Students need to have all of the available information and scientific evidence to be able to properly make observations and draw their conclusions. If they are taught to unquestionably accept and memorize a limited portion of data, they will reach inaccurate conclusions.