Age of the Solar System / Creationism vs. Evolution


An argument exists, based on the premise that our sun is shrinking at the rate of 5’ per day, we can do a reverse calculation to determine the size of the sun; thus, this creates an upper limit as to the age of our sun and Earth.


As a basis of Creationism, the age of the solar system and Earth cannot exceed a few million years as the size of the reverse calculated sun. The argument makes a number of assumptions.


This assumes a linear shrinkage and at a constant rate of shrinkage. They assume that the sun’s current rate of shrinkage has been and remains constant. Why should we assume a constant rate? Further, why should we assume constant shrinkage at all?


Might the size of our sun be cyclic? Is there not geologic evidence of growth and recession of the glacial ice caps? Might there have been periods of growth and shrinkage of the sun? Could the size of the sun have shrunk at faster or slower rates? Could it have grown or shrunk in cycles?


Perhaps an illustration would clarify my argument against faulty assumptions based on observations. Suppose we were to observe the temperature at the same time everyday. We might observe the average temperature decreasing day by day. This observation would give us cause to assume that eventually the average daily temperature would drop to freezing. Likewise, we might have assumed that the average daily temperature might have been at a boiling point in the distant past. This argument ignores the possibility of seasons and non-linear regression. Data would only contradict these assumptions after a large sample could be taken. Suppose all of human history were analogous to an autumn month in the year of our sun. We could easily assume a diminishing sun and without observing the sun throughout an entire cycle, we would not have data to the contrary.


Thus, the size of the sun now, can not prove or disprove evolution or creationism. In similar fashion, because such solar cycles might be so long, recorded history would not provide enough data to show a non-linear regression, but would likewise not disprove it. Both sides of the argument can proclaim victory based on the size of the sun. Here’s how:


Linear Regression: The Earth cannot be old enough to support an evolutionary origin; thus God exists. Assuming the sun, which is currently shrinking, has shrunk at a constant rate, the reverse calculation would produce a sun that would have consumed the Earth and prevented evolution.


Non-Linear Regression: Evolutionists use a similar argument as creationists. Our presence denies the "Big Sun" argument. The sun most obviously throbs in cycles, if it did not, we could not be here. Our presence "proves" it. Lacking data to prove constant rate of shrinkage or swelling and shrinkage, neither side can proclaim victory. In every case, evolutionist theory requires "time."


Creationists would seek to limit the amount of time Earth has existed. The less time we have, the more likely a divine being would be necessary. In essence, without enough time, we could not be here. Our presence is reason for the existence of God.


Evolutionists would seek to lengthen the time of Universal existence. Creationists might illustrate by putting bits of a clock in a bag and shaking it, thus saying, "See, it didn’t reassemble itself into a clock; therefore, the universe had to be created by God." An evolutionist’s reply is: "You haven’t shaken it long enough!"


Time is the critical variable for either argument. Creationists know this. Their arguments will, or should, revolve around limiting time.


A second argument is that of "design." Life is intricate. It demonstrates an efficiency of design. Only a deity could design life. "Look at how complicated we are. That must mean we are created." The argument continues with, how could all of this be the result of randomness? Our complicated, intricate, design and presence is viewed as proof of divinity.


The rebuttal is in the "lottery." Regardless of how remote or how infinitesimally small the possibility of evolution is, the proof is in our presence. The evolutionist merely claims that we’ve won the "existence" lottery. Although the chances were unimaginably small, our number still came up; therefore, we exist. The creationist claims, there is too much evidence of a "designer" we cannot be random. The evolutionist claims, circumstances required that only well designed beings would have evolved.


My assertion is this: Assume evolution. Assume existence could only occur in 1 of a trillion, trillion, trillion iterations. In our case, we are that one. Again we’ve run into a problem of sample size. Suppose you’re in Las Vegas, you’ve put your entire paycheck on the roulette wheel and you win. Having won that one time, you make the assumption that you always win in Las Vegas. We know this to be a faulty assumption because given a larger sample size we could observe more losses than wins. However, we needn’t be concerned with losses. In the "existence" roulette wheel, we only need to win the one time. We only exist, on the one time we win. We only know about the time we won. All other iterations, in which existence did not result, are of no consequence. Creationist might claim, the possibility of so small, only God could have made our number come up. Evolutionists will argue, the possibility; however, small is inconsequential, the fact is, it did.

In the end, you still have to decide for yourself, what you want to believe. Understand that it's what you believe NOT what you can prove.