My religious science teacher's hybrid theory?
I have a physics teacher that is also a geologist, he thinks that the earth is, indeed, 4.5 billion years old, but that time didn't begin until 6,000 years ago.
What do you guys think?
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Either that's a contradiction or he's taking extreme liberties with the definition of time. There really is no middle ground here.
- scottsdalehigh64Lv 71 decade ago
That theory is internally self-contradictory. For the earth to be 4.5 billion years old, there must have been a clock of some type running so that the estimate of the age could be made. For the age of the earth, the clock is the decay of radioactive elements such as uranium. If there were no time, there would be no decay rate which implicitly needs time.
Keep in mind that the astronomers have estimated the age of the universe at approximately 13 billion years based on the current expansion rate. For the universe to expand, it changes with time. Therefore, there has been time for at least as long as the age of the universe.
Your teacher is trying too hard to fit his faith based on 3000 year old stories into a knowledge system based on 500 years of science ( and mostly scientific information that was gathered in the last hundred years).
- Matthew SLv 41 decade ago
I think religion and science, while they can of course be complimentary to each other (think "fides et ratio"), religious extremism (i.e. "fundamentalism" and "biblical inerrancy") is incompatible with scientific advancement and should be stamped out for the collective benefit of humanity as a species.
I laugh when these people (fundamentalists) think that the Earth was formed 6 000 years ago - I think they're confusing the first known recording of history (what we now think of as the "dawn of civilization") with the conception of time. "Time" has been in existence and "ticking" since the Universe began - some 14.7 billion years ago.
In short, your teacher, while his motives are applaudable (i.e. not blindly accepting religion over evidence and factual knowledge), is misguided in his attempt to marry them. Please tell him this for the sake of all humanity - and all fundamentalists too, for that matter.
Oh wait, who am I kidding, rational arguments don't work on religious people: otherwise there would be no religious people...
EDIT: He's a geologist? That means he has to have seen rocks well over 6 000 years old with his own eyes! Truly, the way some people try to marry scientific advancement with an old book is astounding...