What is the Catholic Position on the age of the earth?
Does the Bible allow a free exploration of the evidence?

This article does not attempt to address the scientific rationales for a young or old earth. We only investigate whether the Bible, which God's infallible word, blocks either an old earth or a young earth theory. We also discuss the official Catholic position. For a scientific discussion, see this paper on the earth's age by a Bible believing Christian Evangelical particle physicist.

The Catholic Church is not against science, nor does it subscribe to every whim of the scientific community. The Church is quick to applaud science when it cures a disease, etc. However, the Church will stand against scientists who violate moral principles, on things such as embryonic stem cell experiments, which is barbaric experimentation on five day-old humans. We acknowledge the politicization of academic scientific funding.

When examining a scientific theory, the Catholic Church asks is "does it contradict Scripture?" which is infallible. This can be complicated, which is what we found out with Galileo. Any Catholic theory must adhere to the following Dogmas:

1. God created everything out of nothing ("ex nihlo" in Latin)
2. God created an orderly universe (the universe is not a product of chance)
3. God sustained everything in being (everything depends on God for existence)

The age of the earth is not about Evolution or Darwinism

The age of the earth is derived from at least 5 distinct and independent areas of astrophysics. Darwin was a biologist, not an astrophysicist. The only thing Darwinism has to do with the age of the earth is that his theory requires lots of time. Evolutionary theories of fossil records and observed micro evolution within species are compelling, while other aspects of evolution theory have been proved wrong by science. The irreducible complexity of each species is something modern science has been unable to explain. The universe had an intelligent designer, God.

Modern science now agrees with the Bible that creation has a finite age.

The two sides of Genesis question

Some Christian denominations consider belief in a young earth an article of faith and a litmus test for our confidence in the Bible. They attribute relativism and many of our other modern problems to society's lack of belief in Creationism. On the other end of the spectrum, some Christians think that the insistence on Creationism is what alienates many reasonable people from the Bible and Christianity. They cite St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) who warned:

"one should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous... irrisio infidelium, the scorn of the unbelievers."

The larger Church won't create a Dogma (necessary belief) about the earth's age. Catholic individuals and even movements within the Church, hold a wide range of beliefs about the age of the earth, and are free to present their arguments to the public.

Jesus said "become as children." (Mat 18:3) Most children don't know how old the earth is and don't care.

What happened with Galileo?

Galileo was condemned by the Church for teaching a theory that was contrary to Scripture. At that time, Catholic theologians pointed to scriptural references about the world being "immovable" to reject the idea that the world is spinning. (i.e., 1 Chronicles 16:30, Judges 5:31, Ecles 1:5, James 1:11, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5). Reformers such as Luther, Calvin, Wesley also rejected the "Copernican" system (a round world spinning around the sun) that Galileo championed.

In 1 Chronicles 16:30b which said "Yes, the world stands firm, never to be moved," God was not giving us scientific facts about the earth but rather, He was trying to a communicate spiritual truth. Just because humans interpreted Scripture wrong doesn't mean the Bible is inaccurate, or fallible. It just means we didn't properly understand what God was saying to us in the passage. Our understanding of Scripture is evolving, but the Truth is unchanging. We are on a pilgrimage towards the Truth. However, the Church was not entirely out to lunch when it censored Galileo. Fr. Mateo writes:

Galileo actually taught that the sun was at the center of the universe, not just the solar system; later evidence showed that the sun also orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy; it thus would have been bad if the Church had given an unqualified endorsement to Galileo's theory, for his specific form of the theory turned out to be false.

Geocentrism vs Heliocentrism?

Although there are still some traditionalist Catholics and Evangelical young earth creationists who defend Geocentrism, most modern Young Earth Creationists (YECs) have abandoned Geocentrism because the scientific case against it is overwhelming and the biblical case defending it is weak.

Most YECs understand that the Bible was not trying to assert Geocentrism in the passages previously believed to defend it. The Catholic Church abandoned Geocentrism soon after the Galileo affair.

Catholic traditionalists sometimes defend Geocentrism because the anti-christian Enlightenment movement in the 1700's was born out of the world's acceptance of Heliocentrism and this also spawned the erroneous belief in aliens. So they believe the fruit of Heliocentrism is rotten. However, Geocentrism is not scientifically defensible.

The Bible is without error

The Catholic position on Scripture has always been that it is without error on faith and morals and also on everything else. It is the word of God, word for word. The imperfect people who received inspiration to write it did not mess up when they put the pen to paper, even though they were fallible humans. Even with the rise of science, Vatican I asserted the inerrancy of Scripture. Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pious XII, and Vatican II all reasserted the complete inerrancy of Scripture.

Some modern "theologians" at Vatican II wanted to limit the inerrancy of Scripture to "faith and morals" allowing "errors" in Scripture on historical events, dates etc... but Pope VI stood by the Church's consistent position. The Vatican II statement "for the sake of our salvation" meant that God gave us Scripture for the purpose of our salvation.

It does not make sense to say that God would put exactly what he wanted in Scripture and create an error there. To assume that the inspired writers made mistakes is to put the Bible on the same level as every other inspired book, which clearly it is not.

Interpretation of Scripture - genres

There are various ways to articulate truth, one is through scientific language. Another is through artistic and literary means. Some of our greatest truths are communicated using literary language. When I (David) lost my voice and my career singing on Broadway, I would often say "I am devastated." Scientifically speaking I was not. My organs worked fine, I was breathing and had a healthy pulse. Yet, my experience of being "devastated" was a profound truth. Scientific language such as "Chronic Laryngitis" cannot always adequately describe truth.

When interpreting Scripture and what it is saying to humanity, we must pay careful attention to the genre that is being presented. Some sections of the Bible are historical facts, some are allegories, others are poetic. For instance, the Gospel of Luke describes events from eyewitness accounts and therefore is historical. As for books like Job and Jonah, the Catholic Church says we don't know for sure.

Sometimes what is written needs to be distinguished from what is being asserted by the Holy Spirit through the author. Let's consider a man who is in love with the woman. He might say something like this:

"Oh my love, your eyes are radiant pools of light, which transport me to the stars."

The woman replies: "No, my eyes are globules of protoplasm reflecting the color spectrum onto the back of my retinas, sending the signals to my brain."

Here the woman did not understand the genre with which the man was speaking. We must be very careful of the genre that each biblical passage is written in. If we misinterpret the genre, we may very well misinterpret what God is saying to us in that particular Scripture passage. Theologians call this hermeneutics. Each passage of Scripture is there to teach us something. Theologians must examine Scripture asking "what was God saying to us" and "what spiritual principles was he trying to communicate to humanity."

This is how all the great Christians of history approached Scripture, the good guys, who gave us the faith, who died for the faith, who preserved the faith through all kinds of threats and dangers.

Young Earth Creationists cite genres when arguing against geocentricism (Earth stationary and universe spins around it) . They say the following passages about an immobile earth are not scientific but rather poetic 1 Chronicles 16:30, Judges 5:31, Ecles 1:5, James 1:11, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5, 1 Chronicles 16:30b.

What is the Catholic position on the age of the earth?

As an institution, the Catholic Church has accepted an old earth theory, evidenced by the Catechism, statements of all recent popes, and Catholic theological commissions (discussed below). Some traditionally minded Catholics dispute this and blame Vatican II for yielding to modern science.

When did God create of the Human Body and Soul?

Creation Ministries says that an old earth would mean that man began at the beginning of time.

So a time-line of the world constructed on biblical data would have man almost at the beginning, not the end.

The emergence of the first human looking creature is still hotly debated in scientific circles, but arguments range from 100,000 years to 2.4 million years. Young Earth Creationists think this is due to the politicization of the scientific community rather than objective scientific investigation. While we agree there is political pressure on Christian scientists, we feel the view that this has stifled objective investigation into the emergence of humanoid creatures is overly cynical.

Can we reconcile an old earth with a young humanity?

It is a Catholic dogma that polygenism (many first parents) cannot be taught safely. So Adam and Eve were real.

What makes a human is the combination of a human body and a human soul. Animals do not sin. So even if there were creatures resembling humans, they would not be human unless God gave them souls, which would have only been given to two humans, Adam and Eve.

Perhaps God created a species of creatures resembling humans through a series of evolutionary actions over thousands (or millions) of years and then chose Adam and Eve about 6,000 years ago, into which to impart human souls, making them the only humans.

This reconciles an old earth with a young humanity

It is worth noting that the scientific community embraced the idea of one set of parents (Mitochondrial Eve, Y-chromosomal Adam) in the 1990's although they argue with each other about all kinds of details.

We have a separate article on the creation of the human body and soul.

Was Jesus a Young Earth Creationist in Mark 10:6?

In Mark 10:6 Jesus teaches,

“But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” 

If he was talking about the beginning of the universe, then humans would have to be created on Day 1. But Humans were created on Day 6 in Genesis 1. It seems more accurate to attribute Jesus' teaching to the beginning of the creation of humans, rather than the universe. Since the context is about the creation of humans, this seems most logical.

Matthew 19:4-6 is the parallel to Mark 10:6. It says "In the beginning" without "of creation". If Jesus was trying to assert a young earth, one would assume it would be more explicit and consistent across the Gospels. He would clearly know we would come to this point.

Is an Old Earth theory compromising the Bible?

The Church emphatically asserts that everything in the creation story did in fact happen. It was not a myth or a fable.

The number 7 in Scripture is often used to represent perfection, and the 7 days of creation need not be interpreted literally, but it may signify the perfection of God's creation:

• 3 days to create the forms,
• 3 days to fill them, and
• one day to rest

This works as a teaching mechanism. Scripture supports this view:

"a thousand years in your sight are like yesterday when its past or like a watch in the night" (Ps 90:4)

"...all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!’ They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water... But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day" (2 Peter 3:18).

Genesis 2:4 is describing the same creation story as Genesis 1.

"...On the day (Strong's 3117) that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." (Genesis 2:4)

In Genesis 2 the word "day" (yom) spreads creation over 6 days. God cannot contradict himself. Scripture is perfect. Perhaps this discrepancy is an indication God was not intending Genesis to be understood literally as 24 hour periods. This was St. Augustine's position in the 4th century.

Pope John Paul II said that Genesis 1 and 2 are not trying to communicate scientific data to us. The Catechism says:

337 God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine "work", concluded by the "rest" of the seventh day. On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, permitting us to "recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God." See also Chapters 282-289 of the Catechism. (our emphasis added)

The International Theological Commission, headed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger who became Pope Benedict XVI, held plenary sessions held in Rome 2000-2002, and wrote a paper "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God," published July 2004. It sided with an old earth. The full publication is here.

In 2008, Professor Michael Heller (Kracow, Poland) is a cosmologist and Catholic priest won the Templeton Prize for Science and religion. He was a friend and confident of Pope John Paul II and held belief in an old earth. Heller would say to non-Christian scientists:

"You and I agree that we live in a rational universe. The difference between you and me, is that I spell rational with a capital "R".

If there was a "Big Bang" and a certain amount of progression and change within each species, it was God that made it happen and continues to make every atom move. The creation of the human being (body, mind and soul coming together) was something very deliberate and a singular event (even if he used a series of steps to get a human body ready to receive the soul).

What about dinosaurs in Job 40:15-24? Did they live with humans?

Some advocates of a young earth point to Job 40:15-24, as a description of a dinosaur, and proof that they lived concurrently with humans.

“Behold now, behemoth, which I made as well as you; he eats grass like an ox. Look, his strength is in his loins. And his force is in the muscles of his belly. He moves his tail like a cedar: The sinews of his thighs are knit together. His bones are as tubes of brass; his limbs are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: only he who made him gives him his sword. Surely the mountains bring forth food for him — where all the beasts of the field do play. He lies under the lotus-trees, in the covert of the reeds and the marsh. The lotus trees cover him with their shade; the willows of the brook surround him. Behold, if a river overflows, he does not tremble; he is confident, though a Jordan [swift river] swell even to his mouth. Shall any take him when he is on the watch, or pierce through his nose with a snare?” (Job 40:15-24).

The passage describes a large creature. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274) thought it was an elephant. This was long before any human being had heard of dinosaurs, which were first discovered in the 1800's.

Most young earth advocates think it is a Brachiosaurus. They say the Elephant theory has problems because it doesn't "move its tail like a cedar". The Greek word, זָנָב or "zanob" means "tail, end, or stump". A stump is not always a tail, so there is legitimate room for interpretation (a trunk perhaps?). An elephant has no natural enemies so the line about "Only God can give it the sword" fits. It reclines under trees. The word "Behemoth", means beast and is usually used in a generic way in Scripture. (cf. Genesis 6:7) Alternatively, a hippopotamus tail is "stump" like. A hippo has a huge mouth that could "swallow the Jordan".

The Brachiosaurus theory has problems:

• The Greek seems to indicate that only God could give kill it. But every plant eating dinosaur had a natural enemy, a meat eating predator such as an Alosaurus, or Tyrannosaurus Rex. Young earth folks say these were not meat eaters, which has huge logistical problems as a theory.
• A tree would never give shade to a 50' high, 70' long dinosaur.
• It's mouth could not swallow up the Jordan. Sauropods had very small heads.

It could perhaps be referring to a dinosaur who lived long before any man, it says "First in the ways of the Lord", which could mean it was before man. God certainly knew about dinosaurs, even if Job didn't. Perhaps he meant that passage for today's Christians. Again, we don't have to figure this out to be good Christians. It is just that the Bible is probably not the best primary source of scientific answers to this question. For those who think it is a good source for dinosaur stories, the fact that there are only a couple of oblique references to large creatures, "Behemoth" (Job 40:15-24) and "Leviathan" (Job 41:1-34), is highly problematic. If dinosaurs co-existed with man, one would think the Bible would be rift with such descriptions and analogies, and one would think there would be thousands of such examples in ancient literature, rather than just a few questionably oblique references.

Intellectual humility is a necessity when reading Scripture

We believe that we must have intellectual humility when reading Scripture. The great theologian Augustine in the fourth century said this:

God wished difficulties to be scattered through the sacred books inspired by him, in order that we might be urged to read and scrutinize them more intensely, and, experiencing in a salutary manner our own limitations, we might be exercised into submission of mind. (Divino Afflante Spiritu, 45, cf. At. Augustine)

Augustine did not believe that God was making scientific assertions in Genesis, he may or may not be right. But regardless of whether we agree with his position on Genesis, his point about the difficulties in interpreting Scripture stand.

Science can be the ally of Christianity, not the enemy of it

We must be very careful when we condemn science. When science is applied as a pure art, it is neither atheistic or religious. It simply tries to find the truth based on natural observation of phenomenon.

However, what has happened in last century is that human secularism has tried to hijack science for its own left wing purposes. Human Secularism has set itself against Christ and his message, resulting in misdirected applications of research money, including experimentation on human embryos. This leads to all kinds of difficult moral questions. We believe Catholics and Protestants need to actually win back the scientific community.

159. Faith and science: "...methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." [Vatican II GS 36:1]

Thanks to Fr. Terry Donahue, CC for many of the insights in this article.

Related articles

• Cardinal Ratzinger on Creationism (before he became Pope Benedict XVI)
• How did God make the human body?
• Church fathers on Creationism
• Does Vatican II have ambiguities?
• Pierre Teilhard de Chardin vs Wolfgang Smith