107

Dr Kent Hovind, a noted American Young Earth creationist, claims that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

When I was growing up, I was taught in school that dinosaurs come from at least millions of years ago in Earth's far distant past.

So how can the claim about the Earth being 6000 years old be true?

Is there any evidence that supports the claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old?

Mark Rogers
  • 11,324
  • 11
  • 55
  • 71
  • 15
    A claim of 4004BC for creation is often attributed to Anglican Bishop James Ussher, who published a Bible-based Annals of the World in 1650. As discussed in Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology, this claim was not unique to Ussher and could also be attributed to other contemporaries, e.g. "John Lightfoot published a similar chronology in 1642–1644". – Paul Mar 27 '11 at 22:50
  • The Wikipedia article about Kent Hovind's offer does not mention 6,000 years. For pedants, the followers of James Ussher might state that more than 6,013 years have passed since 23 October 4004 BC. – Henry Mar 28 '11 at 00:30
  • @Henry: True, but because he is one of the popular Young Earth Creationists, it seems implied in his contest. But you have a point, I'll remove it if you like. – Mark Rogers Mar 28 '11 at 00:44

5 Answers5

187

No, there is absolutely no sustainable claim at all that the Earth is young.

It was proven through multiple experiments (see bottom of the answer), and whole sciences have been built on the premise of an old Earth. Admitting a 6,000 years old Earth hypothesis equates to denying the validity of the work of all of those.

It's clearly a false theory espoused by a fringe of extremists.

Most of XX century science is direct evidence against Y. E. C.

Entire books have been devoted to explain how the universe formed and what we currently, rationally and reasonably think might have happened and why. Any pop-sci book on cosmology, physics, evolution would be an interesting read.

Here is a diagram illustrating the consequences (and therefore, the amount of dependent evidence that needs to be disproofed as part of accepting a young Earth).

YEC flowchart

Entire physical sciences need to be proven totally wrong before Y. E. C. is acceptable

If the Earth were young, it would imply that:

cloud chamber

orbitals

DNA

bacterial evolution

Dinosaur

  • Geology? Back to the XIX century as well

Geological layers

Direct proof

All these sciences are based on hard, indisputable and verifiable facts and they either depend on Earth being billions of years old, or they predict that it is.

This is a graph of the results of lead dating Earth through radioactive dating experiments:

enter image description here

Other dating results are summarized on wikipedia (relevant citation is in a book):

Statistics for several meteorites that have undergone isochron dating are as follows:

St. Severin (ordinary chondrite)
Pb-Pb isochron - 4.543 +/- 0.019 GY
Sm-Nd isochron - 4.55 +/- 0.33 GY
Rb-Sr isochron - 4.51 +/- 0.15 GY
Re-Os isochron - 4.68 +/- 0.15 GY
Juvinas (basaltic achondrite)
Pb-Pb isochron ..... 4.556 +/- 0.012 GY
Pb-Pb isochron ..... 4.540 +/- 0.001 GY
Sm-Nd isochron ..... 4.56 +/- 0.08 GY
Rb-Sr isochron ..... 4.50 +/- 0.07 GY
Allende (carbonaceous chondrite)
Pb-Pb isochron ..... 4.553 +/- 0.004 GY
Ar-Ar age spectrum ..... 4.52 +/- 0.02 GY
Ar-Ar age spectrum ..... 4.55 +/- 0.03 GY
Ar-Ar age spectrum ..... 4.56 +/- 0.05 GY

Source: Dalrymple, Brent G. (2004). Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The Age of the Earth and Its Cosmic Surroundings. Stanford University Press. pp. 147, 169. ISBN 978-0804749336.

Community
  • 1
Sklivvz
  • 78,578
  • 29
  • 321
  • 428
  • 53
    It would be nice if your post actually spelled out the science that gives credence to the billions of years claim. As is your post basically says "If you know anything about modern science you know it's older" or "Modern science must be right on all these counts, it's not disputable". Neither of these seem to be very good plans for a "Skeptics site". The only actual evidence you give is the lead isotope ratio chart with no explanation, and no discussion of the inherent assumptions therein. – C. Ross Mar 28 '11 at 12:50
  • 4
    @C.Ross - I agree it would be nice - I could do that, but it would make for a very, very long answer. Whole books and whole sites have been dedicated to the subject! So, instead, the links I've provided point you to very very relevant, if laymen level, references explaining why each of the points is valid. – Sklivvz Mar 28 '11 at 12:55
  • 8
    Not arguing for a young earth or anything, but an argument of the form "How much of XX century science would be just completely wrong if the Earth was young?" flirts dangerously close to the appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) fallacy. – JohnFx Jun 04 '11 at 20:20
  • @joh why would that be? Proving that the Earth is 6,000 y.o. is *equivalent* to proving that there is something deeply wrong in XX science. It's not a consequence as such, at least not more than any reasoning based on the scientific method. – Sklivvz Jun 04 '11 at 21:44
  • 4
    @sklivvz - That's why I said "dangerously close" and not that it categorically falls into that trap. Good science has to be receptive to the prospect that new information could invalidate all of the previous work of science. It would be a pain in the butt, but those types of discoveries are the most exciting of all. The argument of the form "If that were true it would ruin everything" definitely falls into this trap. It is dangerous to dismiss new facts (if there were any here) just because they contract previous theories/frameworks. – JohnFx Aug 08 '11 at 04:57
  • 25
    I really dislike this answer. I don't disagree with it, but I expected to see some kind of direct description of the link between, for example, "evolution cannot possibly be right" and "modern medicine breaks", or between "the Earth is 6000 years old" and "the speed of light cannot be a constant limit". This feels like a really unsubstantiated answer based on the assumption that the reader will already agree with the conclusion; for example, there is no description at all of why the lead-dating chart indicates an old Earth. –  Aug 09 '11 at 21:19
  • @jpr: sure I could make this answer much longer, but YEC is just not worth it. I do not think I need to justify why there is a problem with astronomy when we can currently see object billions of years old in the sky and creation happened only thousands of years ago. I do not think I need to show that medicine is in an arms race with bacteria, where antibiotics are becoming less effective because bacteria evolve. – Sklivvz Sep 01 '11 at 07:34
  • 1
    Nor I need to show why evolution is certainly the best known reason why we are able to conduct medical tests on animals and they also apply closely to humans. I can prove every single link quite strongly, and you can too if you look on Wikipedia. In other words: YEC, like many other crackpot theories, is basically *trollage*. – Sklivvz Sep 01 '11 at 07:40
  • 10
    5) "Most of XX century science is direct evidence against Y. E. C." - Most 20th century sciences have contributed *some results* that validate old earth theory, but they've done plenty of other work 6) "We have no clue about why chemistry works" - while young earth would mean we didn't understand some parts of chemistry, would it really mean we would be clueless? 7) "All modern biology is wrong" - evolution is not an exclusive interest for modern biology 8) "We don't really understand modern medicine" - viral evolution link is broken, medicine is often an empirical science – ipavlic Apr 08 '12 at 22:46
  • 7
    Finally, it is a convention to include linked material to prevent broken linkage (like for 8). As for the comments, if it is a valid question for skeptics, then answers should also meet appropriate criteria. Saying *I could make it a good answer but it's not worth it* (paraphrase) is really not nice. – ipavlic Apr 08 '12 at 22:55
  • 7
    @ipavlic in summa: you disagree. Fair enough - write a better answer, then, and make the site better. – Sklivvz Apr 08 '12 at 23:40
  • 7
    Bear in mind I have not read the other answers yet, but yours most definitely does not actually answer the question. You merely state 'All science would be wrong it this were true.' How exactly does that answer the question? It's a shame that apparent partisanship to naturalism got this answer so upvoted. I actually chose to not join this site at first because of your answer being the most upvoted. @ipavlic points out many of your flaws and you just flat out say 'Nuh-uh.' –  Feb 22 '13 at 21:33
  • 3
    @fredsbend I just saw this comment: I do point out the science at the end, but the claim is just remarkably naive and antiscientific. Regarding the "Nuh"... what can I say, all current medicine has a theoretical framework based on evolution ad modern biology. If the Earth were 6000 years old, that framework would be wrong, and medicine would work by *coincidence*, because we don't understand it at all. Except it's obviously not coincidence since it keeps on being reliable. So if YEC is true then modern medicine *must* be unreliable. That's why I stand behind my statements. – Sklivvz Jan 06 '14 at 00:30
  • 1
    That flow chart does a great job at summarizing the links between DISTANT fields of science, and how they can independently reach the same conclusions on fundamental principles, such as the age of the earth/universe. – Alexander Jan 28 '14 at 20:26
  • 2
    This is a great answer from a theatrical perspective, but fails the sniff test. Science is all about *rationalising* the world - it's entirely possible that evolution is false, and yet for medicine to be effective. – NPSF3000 Apr 21 '16 at 21:40
  • 1
    @NPSF3000 but it would be like *magic*. Our understanding of evolution is at the basis of modern medicine. Virii and bacteria mutate and evolve in response to the selective pressures of new medicines, for example. It's not *entirely* possible that evolution is false and yet medicine sees examples of it constantly. – Sklivvz Apr 22 '16 at 08:03
  • @Sklivvz "yet medicine sees examples of it constantly" Does it? Does medicine see examples of evolution constantly, or does medicine see facts all the time, and *refine* and *adapt* the mythology of evolution to describe them? It's very easy to see 'silly creationists, believing in a young earth' while completely ignoring that science has repeatedly got the age wrong, and could tomorrow restate the age again. Regardless of how old the earth is, the facts on the ground do *not* change, just our theories - e.g. antibiotics still work regardless of evolution, old earth or not. – NPSF3000 Apr 22 '16 at 13:17
  • @NPSF3000 strange that you mention antibiotic resistance, it's actually a well studied fact (http://mmbr.asm.org/content/74/3/417.full) – Sklivvz Apr 22 '16 at 13:21
  • @Sklivvz I skimmed that article, and noted that while it's title is the grand "Origins and Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance" it mostly just talks about how resistance as worked in the last few decades. Important evolutionary statements like "What happened during the evolution of bacteria and other microbes and organisms over several billions of years" are unreferenced, unargued and no supporting evidence provided. It's fluff mythology that scientists like to believe, but has little relevance to the actual article. – NPSF3000 Apr 22 '16 at 13:33
  • 1
    @Sklivvz The references used in this answer do not address the claim that the earth is 6000 years old--instead they go off on tangents about the Universe, asteroids, and the Sun. You do have one reference--a Wikipedia graph which you do not back up with its source. – called2voyage Jun 14 '16 at 16:50
  • 1
    @Sklivvz And I like this answer, but given the recent discussion regarding references directly addressing the question, I feel I should point this out. – called2voyage Jun 14 '16 at 16:51
  • @called2voyage Look better :-) "Source: Dalrymple, Brent G. (2004). Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The Age of the Earth and Its Cosmic Surroundings. Stanford University Press. pp. 147, 169. ISBN 978-0804749336." – Sklivvz Jun 14 '16 at 17:03
  • @Sklivvz Oh, I saw that, but you need to include more relevant info from that source in your answer since it is offline, otherwise we are taking you at your word that it actually addresses the 6000 years claim. – called2voyage Jun 14 '16 at 17:05
  • @called2voyage the results are quoted just above: the earth is 4.5 billions of years old (4.5 GY) – Sklivvz Jun 14 '16 at 17:10
  • @Sklivvz Like I said, those are for meteorites. The layman has no way of knowing without additional information that that's an accurate way of dating the Earth. From an uninformed perspective, old meteorites could have crashed into a young Earth. The claim is specifically about the age of the Earth, not the Universe--it doesn't matter that YECs also believe in a young Universe. – called2voyage Jun 14 '16 at 17:12
  • 1
    If you don't like my evidence, add your own answer. If you think that the article is not believable, ask your own question. Just not here. – Sklivvz Jun 14 '16 at 17:14
  • Let us [continue this discussion in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/41162/discussion-between-sklivvz-and-called2voyage). – Sklivvz Jun 14 '16 at 17:17
86

(Disclaimer: this answer lives on the edge between science and philosophy.)

The earth could very well be only 6,000 years old, but all observed data and deduced models point to an earth billions of years old. This means that if the earth (and the universe) were indeed only 6,000 years old that it would have to have been created in a way such that it were pre-aged -- which is entirely possible, just not verifiable (see Omphalos Hypothesis, Last Thursdayism). At this stage, the distinction becomes/remains important in the realm of religion, but not in the realm of science.

You can look at it another way -- can we actually go back in time to see with our own eyes? No. We measure current data and deduce. In the realm of science the actual age of the earth doesn't really matter; what matters is figuring which "facts" and models to assume true in order to make useful predictions about the future (see Instrumentalism). Knowing the past if solely for peace of mind is more a religious matter than a scientific one; and it's likely we'll never know what really happened 6 thousand or 5 billion years ago anyways. Science is about observations, models, and the future!

(edit: Added some links for further reading / support. Thank you to those who shared links and criticisms of my original answer.)

DuckMaestro
  • 3,238
  • 1
  • 20
  • 24
  • 49
    Even if you admit the "created to look old" argument, the 6000 y.o. claim is unreasonable. I might as well claim 1 second or 1 trillion years, and it would be just as correct. – Sklivvz Mar 27 '11 at 21:50
  • 18
    Right. It's a 100% unuseful model in the realm of science because it's a free variable with no effect on any physical models (but it could be a reasonable choice within certain religions, but I digress). – DuckMaestro Mar 27 '11 at 21:54
  • 11
    @Sklivvz, yes, this is called [Last Thursdayism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis#Other_formulations). If you accept the Omphalos hypothesis, no age is more meaningful than any other. – Matthew Flaschen Mar 28 '11 at 01:23
  • 6
    +1. I think, the thing to call into action her is Occam's Razor. Why go through the whole dance of creating a pre-aged universe, when it is simpler to just create one that began and aged normally over billions of years? – MAK Mar 28 '11 at 04:57
  • 11
    @Mak They're equally difficult to do - impossible as far as we're concerned. – Michael Mar 28 '11 at 13:44
  • 1
    Good example of an answer with absolutely no supporting information other than a "sounds good" argument which is voted up because it conforms. Not saying it's wrong, it's just voted up for the wrong reasons. We shouldn't be up voting just for agreeing with the consensus viewpoint. – Russell Steen Mar 31 '11 at 05:30
  • @Russell, that's fair. I'll see if I can find some supporting literature without wandering *too* far into philosophical lands. – DuckMaestro Mar 31 '11 at 07:32
  • 1
    @DuckMaestro i think you are forgetting something: any claim which cannot be tested is worthless. i always use this to weed out the MASSIVE amount of possibilities that are out there for most things. eg the world was created via [FSM](http://www.venganza.org/) – mulllhausen Apr 14 '11 at 05:01
  • @mulllhausen. You must not have read my answer fully. :) "At this stage, the distinction becomes/remains important in the realm of religion, but not in the realm of science." – DuckMaestro Jun 11 '11 at 21:24
  • @DuckMaestro no i did read your answer and i saw that bit. but why do you distinguish between science and religion (or science and anything else for that matter)? im assuming you hold the beliefs which you have written about...so how do you weed out the large number of possibilities? or are you happy to not arrive at a single conclusion re: events of the past? – mulllhausen Jun 14 '11 at 09:38
  • @mulllhausen, good questions. In my answer I distinguish between science and religion because science (in my view) is motivated by a desire to increase knowledge and quality of life through systematic observation, while religion (in my view) is motivated by a desire to seek peace of mind, self worth, etc. The 'free variable' isn't measurable, so it's not useful to science as characterized above; but it can be useful to religion for consistency. Some scientists seek peace of mind through "knowing what happened!", at which point the distinction between religion and science starts to disappear. – DuckMaestro Jul 02 '11 at 01:10
  • And since you asked personally what I think, I very much subscribe to instrumentalism here, and really only care about science as a way to improve everyone's quality of life, not as a way to feel like I know what happened or how the world "really works". – DuckMaestro Jul 02 '11 at 01:12
30

The 6000 year old figure comes from the Genealogies in the bible -Ussher - He added up the lifetimes from Jesus (1 AD) back to Adam. The Genealogies are surprisingly complete. If you believe in the non-miraculous parts of the bible, it's actually a decent way of figuring out the date of "The Fall of Man." Let us assume, that there was a man called Adam, who was the first follower of Jehovah, and that he lived some time on the order of 6000 years ago.

If we accept that, there is still no evidence that the "Adam" who was kicked out of Eden is the same Adam who was "created" on the sixth day.

What we cannot assume, unless we are biblical literalists, is that the garden of Eden and creation stories are anything but metaphor. The "days" in creation could very well be arbitrary periods of time on the order of millions or billions of years. Peter alluded to this possibility when he said "... With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. [NIV]"2 Peter 3:8

So, even taking the Judeo-Christian genealogies, we still have very weak evidence of a young earth. The only people who believe this are the aforementioned literalists, who believe in the young earth because they are literalists. (That is, they are not literalists because they believe in a young earth.)

TLDR: The only evidence for a young earth is biblical. Take it as you will.

Chris Cudmore
  • 1,505
  • 13
  • 16
  • 10
    +1 for at least looking at the other side. I am one of the aforementioned Biblical literalists and I will freely admit that our basic premises rest on the belief that *the Bible is true*. However, I haven't yet seen evidence to doubt it. By the the way, the next part of another verse (II Peter 3:8) states, "...and a thousand years as one day." This verse is meant to show that God is outside time, not that His time is somehow longer/slower than ours. – Michael Mar 28 '11 at 13:00
  • 2
    People always are very critical of Ussher, he was doing something very useful, which is creating the idea of critical history and how to we take the Bible and other texts from antiquity and figure them out. The problem was he was assuming that the written history of humans was also the history of the Earth. Of course when he was writing there was no way to know that it wasn't. – Zachary K Mar 28 '11 at 13:05
  • 1
    @ZacharyK And there is now? What do we actually *know* about history that wasn't known then? We only know something happened. And if we say that the written history of the earth is not in the written history on man, something's wrong. – Michael Mar 28 '11 at 13:16
  • 4
    There is evidence that the earth is older than 6000 years old, yes. For example geology depends on an old earth and we know it works because the oil companies keep finding oil where they expect to find it. – Zachary K Mar 28 '11 at 13:24
  • 1
    God can't be outside time, if that verse is true. Think about what a day is to a fruit fly or what dog years are; they do not live outside time. A day is the rotation of the earth around itself. If any god would measure his/her "own" time in days, then that would be a whole rotation of either our earth or of an other planet, which would mean 1000-earth-years are 1-planet-day, therefore same time. – Compare: The Big Bang Theory only works in a time *outside* our realm; because extreme density of matter/energy causes faster happening events, infinite time would have passed *inside* our realm. – comonad Mar 28 '11 at 14:18
  • 1
    @comonad God being outside of our time is completely valid. He doesn't live within the realms of the human mind nor the human understanding of things. We ourselves do not fully comprehend the concept of time and saying that "A thousand days is like one day to him" is valid due to the fact the human mind cannot explain how long an infinite period of time is, nor can it explain God and how God's time works. We use words and explanations that make sense to us to the point where we can understand it. God does not live in our time, he is eternal, we are not. – paradd0x Mar 28 '11 at 17:33
  • 2
    @comonad Comparing God's time to the time for a fruit fly and dog years is dumb. Dog years are used to explain aging in human terms. When we say a human year is seven dog years, we are just explaining the aging process that occurs in dogs and putting in terms and numbers that we humans can understand. – paradd0x Mar 28 '11 at 17:34
  • 1
    But if that verse is literally true, then God's time is indistinguishable to our time. If he exists in a time other than ours, then we can't compare those times. It's like comparing gold with money: if there would be any *constant* factor, then gold would be money and vice versa. So, yes... if God lives outside our time, then that verse is dumb, indeed; at least it would not be literally true. – comonad Mar 28 '11 at 19:16
  • @klutch2: Don't say things like "due to the fact the human mind cannot explain how long an infinite period of time is". I'm a mathematician, "infinite" is hilarious simple to understand, as are "time", dimensions, space, causalities and so on. I'm just trying to argue, that the bible cannot always be literally true. – comonad Mar 28 '11 at 19:24
  • 1
    @comonad I didn't say the verse needed to be accepted and understood literally. But it was a way for the man who wrote it to give a basic comprehension of the different realms of time that humans and God live in. How can you say you understand an "infinite" period of time if you have never lived it? In math it's pretty simple, but this isn't math. This is theological and not mathematical. – paradd0x Mar 28 '11 at 19:29
  • 1
    @klutch2: OK, it's a different definition of "understand". Do we agree that the verses of the bible are not meant to be understood literally? Including the statement about the age and/or creation of the earth? (I'd say, at least the scientific age of the earth **written in roman numbers** is far from graspable.) – comonad Mar 28 '11 at 19:48
  • 1
    @comonad Not all verses in the Bible are meant to be taken literally. God is eternal and our concept of time does not apply to him. The verse about one day being equal to 1000 years is to facilitate the understanding of God's eternal state and to apply the human concept of time to Him. Some verses are literal, others are not. Depends on your interpretation. :) – paradd0x Mar 28 '11 at 19:52
  • @sklivvz - Added references. – Chris Cudmore Mar 29 '11 at 12:50
  • 1
    @Thiago M The problem is that people don't seem to agree on which parts to interpret how. Unless you take everything, or nothing, literal, you are cherry-picking, and thus rely on an outside source that guides you in that process. And the only reasonable guide would be science... – Lagerbaer Aug 05 '11 at 02:14
  • 2
    `What we cannot assume, ..., is that ... creation stories are anything but metaphor.` No, that's wrong. A metaphor is something which is meant as a metaphor and understood as a metaphor. "You are my rose." is a metaphor. The story of creation has been understood as literally true for centuries, and maybe it was mean this way. It's a legend - not a metaphor. And `is as Peter alluded to this possibility when he said "... With the Lord a day is like a thousand years ...` is not referring to the Genesis, but about a second coming. Btw: I don't think Peter is a trustworthy, valid source either. – user unknown Feb 10 '12 at 18:21
  • 2
    The point remains, though -- if you believe in literal biblical creationism you are essentially saying *all or nearly all currently understood science is wrong* – Shadur Jun 10 '14 at 13:32
  • 1
    (Just a late suggestion for open-mineness) Genisis never specified how long the creation days were nor how he actually created things. I believe that science and religion *can* be compatible to an extent. As I said though, try to keep an open mind on the situation. – The Mattbat999 Jul 03 '18 at 04:01
  • Genesis does specify the length of creation days - in astronomical terms. "And there was evening, and there was morning - the first day". This is repeated for days 2 through 7. The passage cannot be interpreted as 1 day == 1000 'god' years. – mcalex May 07 '20 at 07:29
24

Wow. Talk about a previously solved problem. However the "controversy" seems to rage on. The debate over this is multifaceted and often crosses scientific disciplines, which can make refutation tricky.

While I doubt I can add anything to the debate, other than yes, the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, I can provide links to the sites where good, kind, intelligent people have already done the heavy lifting to prove this.

Also, I don't mean to poison the well, but here is a nice article regarding Kent Hovind's imprisonment.

You can start here for a good overview of just about every young earth creationist argument and its proper refutation. It also gives a very good presentation of the fossil record, including the transitional fossils.

Another good place to start if you would like to learn about the Earth and the science behind how we know what we know is the Unofficial Stephen Jay Gould Archive. it is an excellent place to get an idea of the science of paleontology, particularly the cambrian explosion, and theory of punctuated equilibrium. An understanding of how radiocarbon dating works is also helpful. Some independent study in geology is always helpful as well.

The iron chariots wiki exists solely for the purpose of countering the glut of poor arguments touted as evidence for religious claims such as this check it out.

PZ Myers routinely takes on these claims from the perspective of evolutionary biology. His site is brilliant, well written, and humorous.

I have not cited any specific studies done, simply because if you follow through on the links above you will find them, regarding just about any aspect of the question.

However, not everything has to be a link or a site. If you want to understand the planet you live on, the universe it's in, and the beings you share it with, then go on, read Hawking, Dawkins, Darwin, Gould, Feynman, Einstein, Watson & Crick, and definitely read Sagan, read the Bible, read the Koran, read the Bhagavad-gita, or any of the other holy books. Put in the time, do the research, ask the questions, you will probably find that if you do, you will only increase your understanding of the issue.

Monkey Tuesday
  • 24,456
  • 19
  • 109
  • 136
  • 1
    I like the recommendation of actually reading the books that always get referred to. I mean, probably many have read a bestseller by Dawkins, but whoever took the time to read the other books you recommend? Yet often just the people who didn't read *X* at all make the strongest claims about it... – StackExchange saddens dancek Mar 28 '11 at 09:14
  • 7
    Poison the well you did. Much as I am gleeful at his imprisonment, it does not pertain to the discussion. At all. He was imprisoned for tax fraud, not for stupidity. – Konrad Rudolph Mar 28 '11 at 13:43
  • 1
    Didn't mean to imply that his imprisonment invalidated his claims (which clearly invalidate themselves). My answer started out as a comment, but got too long. All I wanted to do was provide some links, and I figured that since this was a skeptic site most readers would already be familiar with Kent Hovind's legal issues and might enjoy the article. Didn't intend it to persuade anyone one way or the other regarding the claim, and honestly, I hope it didn't. – Monkey Tuesday Mar 29 '11 at 02:33
21

Introduction

Over the ages, people have developed

techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning

quote from: Scientific method, Wikipedia

Those techniques of inquiry are usually known as scientific method. Working hypotheses are proposed as explanations for phenomena, and are then tested with experiments. A hypothesis must be able to predict some outcome, and it must be possible to test if the prediction is wrong.

Falsifiability or refutability of an assertion, hypothesis or theory is the logical possibility that it can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment.

quote from: Falsifiability, Wikipedia. See Karl Popper, Logic of Scientific Discovery. In the meantime check Science: Conjectures and Refutations as an introduction.

Theories are groups of hypotheses which have some logical structure and help "explain" phenomena in a common mental framework.

Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

from: Scientific method, Wikipedia

If some phenomena in the field are not predicted by the current (dominant) theory, then hypotheses with which we could explain that phenomena are formed and tested. Those that can be incorporated in the current theory are. If a tested hypothesis cannot be incorporated in the current theory, then that theory is changed, or a new theory which better fits all experimental data becomes dominant.

see The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn, overview at Wikipedia article. If you think Mathematics is exempt, see Proofs and Refutations by Imre Lakatos (which draws influence from George Pólya's teachings on the subject).

It is very important to note that any new theory would have to take into account all hypotheses that have not been disproved.

Current theories

There is a large number of predictive hypotheses that have been tested with many experiments and have not been disproved yet and either:

  1. predict an old earth or
  2. require an old earth for their explanatory power

We say that such hypotheses are consistent with an old Earth. Those hypotheses are lumped together to form the best theories we currently have to explain various phenomena.

Some examples are already mentioned in Sklivvz's answer:

This is not an exhaustive list. Most sciences (at least 'hard sciences') have contributed some hypotheses that are consistent with old Earth.

The claim about the Earth being 6000 years old could be true (in the "scientific" sense) if:

  1. it would not be in contradiction with tested hypotheses or

  2. it would provide a model (theory) that:

    • covers all phenomena explained by current hypotheses consistent with an old Earth
    • is predictive and falsifiable
    • is thoroughly tested
    • provides a convenient and understandable explanation for all such phenomena

Only one such theory comes close to that as far as I know -- the Earth and the Universe coming to existence 6000 ago looking and behaving as though they were much older than that. As there is no predictive and explanatory difference, we usually choose the simpler explanation (i.e. that the Earth and the Universe really are much older). See Occam's razor to learn about the motivation for such a choice.

All young earth theories that I have heard of yet do not satisfy some of the above requirements (or none of them). For popularly accessible details, refer to talkreason website or talkorigins website.

Usually though, the demands are even higher:

  • it should cover some additional phenomena (otherwise why change an old working model that has the same predictive and explanatory power; partly motivated by Occam's razor and also partly by economic considerations).

Problems in understanding

There are usually a couple of problems that impede our understanding:

  1. Not a lot of people truly grasp the scientific method. Only around 30% of 25-64 U.S. population has a Bachelor's degree as of 2008. Source: The Condition of Education from Institute of Education Sciences. Furthermore, a degree does not always imply that the person understands the scientific method. See Konrad Paul Liessman's Theory of Miseducation for possible explanations.
  2. Above-mentioned theories are sometimes presented as given facts in the educational system. See school curricula in your country.
  3. Even though the evidence for an old Earth is overwhelming, it is sometimes very complex and is scattered throughout many fields of science. It is hard (time-demanding) to have operational knowledge for even one such science and exceedingly difficult for all such sciences. Therefore scientists versed in one field rely on peer-reviewed results from other sciences. Some people mistake such reliance for faith.
  4. Many people do not have operational knowledge in any science that is directly related to the age of Earth. They believe that the results from other sciences are true because they understand the scientific method, but when asked to explain such results, they cannot do so. That makes it easier to mistake their belief for faith.
  5. Finally, there is a large number of people who do not understand the scientific method at all. As a result they make many logical fallacies in their arguments, and are often ideologically motivated to be combative in their arguments with people holding differing opionins.
ipavlic
  • 562
  • 5
  • 14
  • Hello, thanks for the lengthy answer. We do require that any significant claims be supported by references from reputable sources. Feel free to pilfer from my answer for some! Please add adequate citations to your answer. Please read http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1505/welcome-to-new-users and http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/5 – Sklivvz Apr 09 '12 at 00:41
  • @Sklivvz Thank you! I will be editing my answer to provide references. – ipavlic Apr 09 '12 at 06:59
  • While you are working on a potentially better answer, you might want to touch on the time model and possible effects of time dilation. I find this aspect (passage of time as modeled by the scientific method) to be of interest while I was considering this question. – prusswan Apr 09 '12 at 07:27
  • @prusswan I am sorry, I don't know much about the possible effects of time model and time dilation on the considerations about the age of Earth. Could you provide some ideas or references? – ipavlic Apr 09 '12 at 10:23
  • This is quite a nice summary, very well done indeed. Just a reading tip: *The Beginning of Infinity* by David Deutsch, which gives a better account for why the “the Universe was created pre-aged” explanation is bad, which goes way beyond simply invoking Occam’s razor. Briefly, good explanations (according to him) are *hard to vary*. The “Universe is pre-aged” is easy vary, i.e. we can give a multitude of possible reasons for why this is, while the good explanation of the age of the Universe rests on precise prediction which, if varied even a little, would turn out false. – Konrad Rudolph Jun 15 '12 at 10:06
  • ++1 answered the question and explained the scientific theory! Awesome. – Big McLargeHuge Nov 07 '14 at 05:09