Earthsky Interviews
Private: Reconcile Biblical dating with scientific dating?
May 9, 2007 - Human World
Gary Sabiya wrote:
_”I am aware that there are various scientific means of pre-historic dating, among them is the popular carbon-14 isotope dating. However, these dating methods seem to be in conflict with Biblical dating. Are there any flaws or shortcomings in the current scientific dating methods? If not, how do we reconcile Biblical dating with scientific dating?”_
Earth & Sky “Science Advisors”:http://208.96.63.114/about/earth-sky-science-advisors respond to Gary’s question below.
h3. Bruce A. Wielicki
*NASA Langley Research Center*
*Hampton, VA.*
Gary:
As a Christian and a scientist I had to come to grips long ago with the conflict between Genesis and science. Here is how I have come to reconcile these seemingly different views of creation (because the scientific evidence is extensive in many fields (not only carbon dating) and cannot be wished away).
Genesis is in essence an Old Testament parable. Explaining that God created the universe through a set of physical laws that encompass an incredible diversity of physical and biological life (including evolution) would have been totally lost on the people of the Old Testament. The bible is a much richer book than it would be if simply literally interpreted. A literal interpretation would restrict its message and focus it on the people, culture, and times in which it was written. The New Testament is very explicit about the need for and power of parables. Just like in science, there are major concepts that if presented in a more general form, can be applied to a wide range of specific situations. The Bible is not a cook book. Its a physics text for the spiritual part of the universe. The Old Testament is Part I: some of the simpler concepts, told in simpler stories, and closer to the concepts that you feel you can see or touch (like the physics of billiard balls in elastic collisions). The New Testament is Part II: the heavier stuff with lessons that are designed to stretch you beyond what you can simply see and touch (quantum, relativity, magnetism, etc).
So to me, Genesis is a parable. And evolution is yet another example of God setting the laws of the universe in such a way as to let us come to be in the most natural and elegant way possible. If you believe that God is all knowing and all powerful: what more elegant way to start a universe than to set its physical laws, and kick start it with the Big Bang. Awesome indeed. Of course we may not be His only universe, just as we may not be His only children. And like a father giving lessons to his children, the early lessons have to be very simple when trying to explain things that are complicated beyond the child’s readiness to understand a literal or full explanation. In fact, we are probably at best in the early teen age years now…
h3. Steven K. Webster
*Monterey Bay Aquarium*
*Monterey, CA*
Dear Gary:
The authors of the Bible (and other texts left out of the Bible by various self-appointed authorities) were contemporaries of their times (2,000 years ago +/- a few hundred years). They did not know the Earth is round, or that it orbits the sun, or that electrocardiograms can help diagnose heart problems, or that MRI exams can pinpoint brain tumors. Modern science trumps their conclusions at every turn, including the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, and the means by which organic evolution results in the biodiversity we observe on this planet.
I believe to plan our lives on the basis of a belief in miracles is a risky bet, at best. I’ll cast my vote with human reason and science. Thanks for asking.
h3. John R. Christy
*Alabama State Climatologist*
*Director of the Earth System Science Center*
*University of Alabama in Huntsville*
Gary:
As a former missionary to Africa, seminary graduate, minister and now atmospheric scientist I would sum up the issue this way. The Bible answers questions of Who and Why, science answers questions of How and When. In Science we try to find the best explanations for what is observed. In Faith we seek to know not ” who we are” but “whose we are”.
h3. Geerat J. Vermeij
*Department of Geology*
*University of California at Davis*
Gary,
You know how on some TV shows, the detectives can tell how much time passed since a person died because they are able to measure certain things like dried blood, the condition of the skin and muscles, and so on? They are able to make the accurate estimate of the time of death because a body decomposes in a predictable, well-documented way over time. One element that assists in these kinds of determinations is carbon. Just about all life on Earth contains carbon, it�s reasonable to say that it�s one of the most common elements on the planet because all life on Earth uses it for life processes such as digestion, breathing, and building muscles and bones. Carbon, and other elements, can be measured in many ways, and the measurements have been shown to be accurate predictors of time�s passage. Just like on the cop show, when an animal dies, certain elements in its body begin to break down and the loss of these elements continues at a steady and predictable rate over time. So, when a bone is discovered, let�s say the bone of a large reptile that is now extinct, it is possible to measure the remaining amount of the elements that were present in the animal when it was alive.
It is important to remember that when scientists accept as accurate a measurement procedure such as this one, they understand that it is not perfect. In other words, if a bone is found, and the measurement, such as carbon dating, identifies the bone as 50 million years old, the actual age of the bone, considering the possibility of acceptable error, would be somewhere between 45 and 55 million years old. If you have serious doubts about the dating process, let�s say that the scientists are way off, perhaps by 10 times as much. That would mean that the bone would be at least 5 million years old. If the scientists were off by a 100 times – which is about the same thing as the detectives confusing a one-year old cadaver from a 3-day-old cadaver – then the bone they’d found would still be half a million, or 500,000 years old.
Many scientists consider it a beautiful truth that the world is so ancient and varied, just as many theologians consider their faith a source of beauty and truth. There is no reason the two truths cannot co-exist in the world because religious faith needs not rely upon scientific fact any more than scientific fact must rely upon religious faith.
h3. Marc Fagelson
*Department of Communicative Disorders*
*East Tennessee State University*
*Johnson City, TN*
Gary, I’m sure that you would agree the world would be much better off if the two lines of thought co-existed more easily.
h3. Geerat J. Vermeij
*Department of Geology*
*University of California at Davis*
As an evolutionary biologist and paleontologist, I would say that methods of dating are based on sound principles of decay of one isotope into another. At the time the Bible was written, people knew virtually nothing of science, so they invented stories that seemed compatible with what they observed. But we have learned much since then. Like science itself, religious beliefs must change; if they don’t, they will be discarded.
h3. Benjamin S. Orlove
*Department of Environmental Science and Policy*
*University of California*
*Davis, CA*
I’d start by saying that the Bible and science have in common a strong fascination with historical narrative. They both trace the universe as its patterns unfold in time. And the stories are often tied to units of time. The Bible speaks of days and years and generations, and we must look closely to see what these words meant: we can’t assume that a day or a year was the same in the past. In other words, the Bible narratives require close reading to make sure that we don’t insert our current understanding of time units.
h3. Bohdan Paczynski
*Department of Astrophysical Sciences*
*Princeton University*
As far as I know, some Christians – approximately one billion Christians – have no problem reconciling science and religion. I have in mind the Catholics, who follow the Pope on those matters. In particular an estimate of the current age of the universe, about 12.7 billion years, the Big Bang, and the evolution, are no problem for those one billion of Christians.
I do not know much about other religions, but the few Muslims I know tell me that there is no conflict between Islam and science.
h3. Bill Patzert
*Research Oceanographer*
*NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory*
*Pasadena, CA*
Religion and science are both systems of ethics, values and beliefs. Religion is based on ancient, supernatural explanations of human’s relationship with the Universe. In contrast, science is the systematic acquisition of knowledge of the Universe that is verifiable. Here we have the conflict – fact vs. faith. In my experience, this conflict is quite emotional on both sides. Quite honestly, I don’t think I would attempt to reconcile Gary’s Christian thought with my scientific thought – especially at a cocktail party. Why ruin my evening? But I hope Gary’s children are attending a good public school where the scientific explanations of our Universe are taught. If Gary is really curious about his question, I can recommend some good books on this topic. It seems fair that he should read up on this. Hey, I’ve read the Old Testament. Good for him for asking!
h3. Bob & Ellen Kaplan
*co-authors of The Nothing That Is, The Art of the Infinite, and the forthcoming Out of the Labyrinth: Setting Mathematics Free*
A deep part of our nature wants to understand; equally deep is our distrust of answers that stop short. In Biblical times people were inspired by faith to believe that the truth was revealed to a special few, who then passed it on to us.
In our times it seems we too believe that a special few – scientists – have revelations that we can only take their word for. But there’s a significant difference. Any of us can learn to look at evidence critically, form guesses to explain it, and then test those guesses. We have to be willing to give up a guess if our testing shows that it fails to explain the evidence – and then guess and test again.
Isn’t this in fact how all of us navigate through our daily lives? Science works humbly in ways that grow from our common experiences. Its results don’t diminish the glory of the universe but enhance it: they change our wonder into awe at that deep fittingness of things.
h3. Kevin Trenberth
*Climate Analysis Section*
*National Center for Atmospheric Research*
*Boulder, CO*
There was an excellent program on NPR a short time ago on archaeology about Biblical times. The best work on archaeology makes clear that the Bible is not a historical document. Many events portrayed demonstrably did not happen or did not happen at the times and places depicted. Some may be out by 1000 to 2000 years. (2000 BC instead of 400 BC). Cities reported to be in existence were not there until much later. Many events took place over say 200 years but are compressed in the Bible to a few years. The Bible should not be taken literally.
h3. Richard Alley
*Department of Geosciences*
*Pennsylvania State University*
*University Park, PA*
Gary – Great question. There are no large problems with the scientific dating methods, and they can be reconciled with religious writings.
A tree that grandma planted in the orchard can be dated by counting the years of growth, and you’ll notice that “good” and “bad” years made thick and thin layers. The wood in the checkerboard that grandpa made from a tree in great-great-grandfather’s orchard will have that pattern of good and bad rings, and matching them up allows a record longer than the life span of one tree. The longest such tree-ring record combining living and nearby dead wood is now well over 10,000 years long. Tree-ring chronologies are useful to archaeologists in understanding key sites, and frequently attest to the accuracy of historical records, but also show additional time older than written history. Hence, a purely literal interpretation of written histories does not cover the whole age of the Earth. People studying ice-core layers get the same answer. (By finding the chemically fingerprinted ash of historically dated volcanic eruptions, the ice-core people can check themselves back through written history, and there are lots of older ice layers below that.)
Many scientists work on the dating techniques, including counting of annual layers, looking at geological records and figuring out how rapidly they could have formed, and dating with various other “clocks” including the radiocarbon you mention and many others. These different techniques agree with written history as far back as it goes, and they agree with each other. There is plenty of work to do to increase precision, and intelligent use is required, but the dating techniques do work, and do show a fascinating, old Earth that we love to study.
Religious people deal with this in many ways. Some say that the scientists are evil liars, or have been led astray by the devil. Some speculate that a young Earth was made to look old to guide us to oil and minerals. Some note that the Bible often has used “common” words to express uncommon ideas. Biblical scholars long ago decided that Psalm 93 (“The world will surely stand in place, never to be moved”) does not actually require the sun to orbit the Earth. Many Christians view the pre-Exodus Biblical chronologies in this way – don’t think of a “day” as 24 hours during the first “week” in Genesis. You may gain insight from possibly the world’s most famous Sunday-School teacher, former president James Earl (“Jimmy”) Carter, a scientifically trained and deeply religious person, who said (CNN, 2004) “There can be no incompatibility between Christian faith and proven facts concerning geology, biology, and astronomy. There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat Earth in order to defend our religious faith.”
h3. Kai Lee
*Center for Environmental Studies*
*Williams College*
*Williamstown, MA*
I have no expertise on the question posed, beyond having a firm belief in radioactive decay and the exponential law. I do think the literal truth of the Bible is a very difficult position to reconcile with the findings of science. My sense of this (not being a Christian but respecting Christianity) is that there are moral truths in the Bible that are to be taken literally, and that there is a respect to be owed to this ancient historical document. Like all historical documents (at least those in which humans have played a role in transmitting) there are inconsistencies, some of which we can resolve. For the rest, we should pray for grace, if I understand what prayer and grace mean.
Cheers,
Kai
h3. Robert M. Hazen
*Geophysical Laboratory*
*Carnegie Institution of Washington*
*Washington, DC*
I’ve been asked this question every semester for 10 years (as well as at parties). The shortest answer is that there’s no current debate or controversy among scientists about the C-14 dating method. It has been correlated with tree rings, ice cores, and sediments that have annual rings or layers back to at least 50,000 years. There have been minor fluctuations in the amount of atmospheric C-14, but nothing dramatic.
Longer answers involve talking about the nature of observational evidence, and science versus faith as ways of knowing. Bottom line: Science cannot disprove the existence of God, nor can it deny that the universe is imbued with meaning and purpose. And for many of us in science, the best way to know the Creator is to look outside at creation. Even longer answers are found in various books and articles (including some of my own), to which I refer interested individuals.
h3. Barry A. Rice, Ph.D.
*The Nature Conservancy*
*Davis, CA*
Interesting discussion.
There is no denying some conflicts here. Carbon-14 dating, an example of radioisotope dating, is just one of many techniques that science uses to date the age of ancient objects. If it was the only technique, it would be an easy target for questioning. But there ARE other methods science uses to gauge ages, and they back up the radioisotope techniques. Incidentally, the radioactive decay processes behind carbon data are well understood: well enough so that it is used to understand radioactivity used in warfare, energy production, and medical technologies.
So, how do you reconcile an anthropologist holding an “80,000-year-old artifact” with a “6,000-year-old Earth” of scripture? You really can’t. The problem is in mixing the roles of Science and Religion. The 6,000 year old Earth image is not a biblical teaching, it is not a pillar of Christianity. It is not a number stated in the Bible. Instead, it is the result of James Ushher attempting a “scientific” analysis of biblical dates. The Bible is a spiritual book, not a scientific one, so trying to make it into something it isn’t will of course have peculiar results.
Look to science for facts, and religion for spirituality. Not the other way around.
If Gary pressed me, and he seemed interested, I’d happily point out that C14 dating assumes steady-state accumulation of materials from space, etc., which cannot be completely proven, but would only venture down this path with caution because the public frequently mistakes minor scientific questions as justification for throwing out the entire argument.
h3. Thomas J. Corona
*Department of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences*
*Metropolitan State College of Denver*
*Denver, CO*
They can’t be reconciled. One is a scientific view of the age of the Earth based on principles of physics and chemistry, in other words, natural laws. The other is the result of oral histories, recollections, and mythologies of a time without calendars and clocks. It’s kind of like comparing apples to oranges. They are both fruit (histories), but they are nothing alike.
Sure there are inaccuracies in all dating methods, including the Bible’s. A good overview (although I’ve only read a review) on how scientists date things and events can be found in the following book: Bones, Rocks and Stars : The Science of When Things Happened by Chris Turney. It is written for non-scientists.
h3. Chris Corbally
*Vatican Observatory Group*
*University of Arizona*
*Tucson, AZ*
The point of biblical dates is to tell me that God acts in history. That scientific dating implies that the further the biblical author was from the event, like the origin of the world portrayed in Genesis chapter 1, the less accurate the author’s dating is not “the point”. So for scientific dating I look to carbon-14 isotope work or, say, the theory of stellar evolution, but for the relationship between those dates and the saving action of God I look to the Bible’s theology.
h3. Susan Boa
*Joint Oceanographic Institutions, Inc.*
*Washington, DC*
My answer to that question is much shorter and simpler: who are we to understand the length of God’s day?
h3. Steven R. Bohlen
*Joint Oceanographic Institutions*
*Washington, DC*
If one is looking for agreement between a literal interpretation of the Bible and what is known both about scientific dating and the age of the planet, one is likely to be frustrated and disappointed. The scientific web of information about the age of Earth, the ages of rocks on Earth, and the logically compelling consistency among many different methods, both quantitative (isotope) and relative (geological superposition), dating, all point to the Earth’s great antiquity. The convergence of many lines of evidence place the age of the Earth at 4.56 billion years in a universe of 13.6 billion years since the big bang. There are complexities and challenges in applying each isotopic system to obtain age information. Each system has unique characteristics that complicate the interpretation of the age information derived. There are however many different isotopic systems, all of which would have to be wrong in very specific and consistent ways for all to be giving consistent, but completely wrong answers in always one direction (giving ages that are too old).
Some have pointed to changes in the decay rate, thought to be constant over time by scientists, to account for the discrepancy. Again, because of the various decay schemes, of which there are many, the radioactive constants would have to vary in precise ways at precise times for there to be consistency among the methods and have the answers be internally consistent and consistently too old. Also, the physicists would have much to say about inconsistently variable decay rates. That is to say, not only are there problems from an Earth-age and geology perspective, but from a physical matter perspective, and a chemical perspective, and so on.
If one is willing to view the Bible as a general guide and not a literal guide, then one can envision a more satisfying consensus. For example, scientists have inferred that many important events in the history of Earth happened rather quickly. The mass of the planet formed quite rapidly from the solar gas cloud after sun formation. The core of the Earth separated rather quickly from an undifferentiated Earth shortly after the planetary mass had accumulated (about 30 MY after Earth mass accumulation). Stable continents formed early in Earth history (evidence of oldest rocks is 4.4 billion years, only about 150 million years after Earth formation). And so on.
So if one thinks of biblical creation as a metaphor for the kinds of events mentioned above, then one can resolve what one reads in the Bible and and a scientifically determined ancient Earth that has formed and evolved according to the observable (and internally consistent) natural processes of the observable universe.
h3. Thomas Jones
*author of Sky Walking: An Astronaut’s Memoir*
As a Christian scientist, I use the tools God gave us (our minds, the laws of physics, our observations of the natural world around us) to seek an understanding of how this universe of ours functions. We understand through long experimentation and practice that our methods of radiometric dating consistently explain the ages of Earth and its rocks and organic material in a repeatable way. The methods are based on the observable rates of decay of the very elements our universe is made of, and the laws we have derived from those observations. Thus, unless God is deliberately fooling us, these ages are accurate and repeatable measurements that help us understand the origins of Earth and the universe.
I see no conflict with these scientifically provable and repeatable measurements, and those metaphoric or literary references to time in the Bible, written originally for people whose concepts of time were relative rather than absolute. Now we can make use of our discoveries to put our dating of Earth and sky into an accurate framework, making use of our learning to find out even more about Creation.
h3. John Harte
*Energy and Resources Group*
*University of California*
*Berkeley, CA*
The use of isotopes for scientific dating is a highly reliable method. Many scientific tests have been carried out and the accuracy of the method is confirmed. With respect to it’s acceptance by scientists, it is up there with the use of rulers to measure distance and scales to measure weight.
There are many non-scientific ways to portray the age of something. Some are metaphorical as in “granddad was as old as the hills”, while others may reflect confusion between what we would like to think is true and what is actually true. Literature and mythology, as well as the various religions, abound with lovely chronologies, often intended to be metaphorical rather than literal; sometimes these chronologies are in conflict with each other, and often they wildly differ from the results of scientific measurement. But we need not disparage them for that – for they are not meant to be scientific statements. Enjoy the poetic chronologies, but trust the scientific ones!
h3. Michael C. Grant
*Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology*
*University of Colorado-Boulder*
*Boulder, CO*
There are many methods used in science to date things historically and all of them have advantages and disadvantages. Carbon 14 dating is but one method. Scientists are most convinced of the validity of a date (and dating method) when multiple different, independent methods arrive at the same or nearly the same value. For example, by the careful use of tree-ring data in certain climates, dendrochronologists (i.e. those who specialize in tree-ring data analysis) have been able to construct a continuous record of more than 8,000 years into the past and have used these data to “calibrate” carbon 14 dating protocol. A few individual bristlecone pine trees, still living, have been aged at more than 4,000 years with the oldest at 4,767 years. There are several well-known complications to tree-ring dating, such as multiple rings in a given year, etc. but dendrochronologists know how to deal with them. The precision of the tree rings, often to a single year or just a few years, greatly exceeds the precision of, say, carbon 14 dating. On the other hand, Carbon 14 dating can be extended to roughly 50,000 years, far beyond current tree-ring capabilities. There has been much scientific work to cross-calibrate tree ring dates and carbon 14 dates with sedimentary deposit events and historically reported dates. For example, dating (via carbon 14) recovered wood in ancient tombs which were previously dated by human means, etc. The more these cross-calibrations converge, the more confidence scientists have in the dates. And there has been lots of successful, convincing, cross-calibration.
From a Christian biblical perspective, there are varying views. For example, the “Great Flood” is variously dated as occurring 4,300 to 4,500 years ago, depending on the length of the sojourn of the descendants of Israel in Egypt (an interesting and potentially important point for other purposes, but one which is of minor significance here). This placement of the Great Flood is derived from the numbers in Genesis 11 as given in the Masoretic Text. A second time period identifies the Great Flood as having occurred roughly 5,500 years ago, in accordance with the numbers in Genesis 11 as given by the Septuagint. Lastly, other biblical scholars place the Great Flood at a point usually between 10,000 to 30,000 years ago, and require major gaps in the genealogy of Genesis 11. The precise point is usually not specified by any biblical, archaeological, or geological data. Clearly, these numbers are not very ‘convergent’ with each other.
Some recent scientific work has led to the conjecture that about 7,000 years ago, warmer temperatures led to glacial melting which led to a catastrophic flooding of the Mediterranean over the Straits of Bosporus into the Black Sea. They conjecture this may have been the even that led to the development of the Great Flood oral stories which were, much later, committed to text form.
So the issue of “resolving” Biblical/Science dating conflicts isn’t easy; it is entirely possible they cannot be mutually resolved and must remain in clear conflict.
h3. Elliot Meyerowitz
*California Institute of Technology*
*Pasadena, CA*
There are three questions here, and here are three short answers:
Both the theoretical basis and practical application of carbon-14 dating are sound and tested (for example, on tree rings, which provide an independent measurement of time by which carbon-14 dating has been checked).
The conflict with traditional biblical dating is real, and the differences in the two sets of dates are irreconcilable. Not, perhaps, the answer that you want to hear, but that is the way it is.
My thoughts about it, your final question, are that sometimes things are not the way we wish they are, and not the way we have been taught they are – but that inferences from experiments are a more effective basis for organizing our thoughts and actions than are wishful thinking, or traditional teachings.
h3. Jeffrey G. Wardeska
*Department of Chemistry*
*East Tennessee State University*
*Johnson City, TN*
In discussing this issue, it’s important to remember what the Bible is and what it is not. I start from the idea that our religious beliefs help us to answer the “why” questions; is there a purpose for our existence, what meaning is there in life, etc. Science does not provide answers to these questions, but asks the “how” questions, e.g., what are the laws by which our physical world operates? These are different questions about our existence and complement each other. The Bible itself does not provide a date for the beginning. The commonly held creationist view that the earth is 6000 years old (there are many others) is from a calculation by Bishop James Usher, Archbishop of Armagh, Ireland (1581-1656) and is based on one of the genealogies of Jesus in the gospels.
Are there errors or flaws in radioactive dating? Like all scientific experimental data, there are good data and there are results which are less reliable. However, scientists regard the radioactive dating methods as being based on sound and well-understood scientific principles. Carbon-14 dating methods have been calibrated against tree-ring studies, and the sheer number of “good” dates from the various dating methods provides a timeline for the age of the earth which is consistent with other lines of evidence.
I believe, that approaching these questions with an open and questioning mind can provide many additional insights and meaning for us. Science and our beliefs should not be seen as being in conflict, but as complementary ways of understanding our world and our role in it.
h3. Carl Batt
*Department of Food Science, Nanobiotechnology*
*Cornell University*
*Ithaca, NY*
I don’t think that there has to be a single answer to any question, nor does any answer have to be absolute in all cases the sum total of all of the facts. This may seem to be counter to science, that sometimes there is not an absolute truth. Faith is something that does not have to meet the test of science and faith should not be constrained by a need to conform to an absolute set of facts. So the age of the Earth and the age of fossil might seem counter to a certain set of beliefs. For example a story in the Bible. That the Earth is billions of years old should not detract from faith in that story (or more what the story mean to a given individual). Nor should faith oblige the believer to an effort to discount or explain away the science, conjuring up something to explain why the science is not correct. The science is correct, the carbon isotope dating is correct. It is not 100% accurate but it is not sufficiently inaccurate to allow for a literal interpretation that the Earth being only a few thousand years old. These methods are not in conflict with an interpretation of the Bible, but a literal interpretation of the Bible is in conflict with the facts. Facts are not the absolute truth but they are also as good as it gets until proven wrong. Faith should not be used to prove science wrong and science should not be used to discount faith.
h3. Steven Sherwood
*Department of Geology and Geophysics*
*Yale University*
*New Haven, CT*
Scientists seek the simplest explanation for phenomena they observe, because centuries of experience have taught us that this is the most likely to be correct. We observe carbon 14 decay at a certain rate in the laboratory, and know that it originates in the atmosphere because we see this happening today at a rate that should not change much over time. Its reduced concentration in fossils implies a certain age which often turns out to be tens of thousands of years or longer (similar dating methods with longer-lived isotopes yield ages of up to about four billion years for some rocks). We cannot absolutely rule out unexpected, complicated explanations for what we find, just as we cannot prove that the sun and all the planets don’t orbit the earth in curly-cue patterns that violate Newton’s laws–but the pieces fall into place so much more easily if we just suppose that the same principles apply across time and space, and accept that the ages are at least roughly correct (and that the planets all orbit the sun). It is up to each individual to decide how to reconcile the observed facts with religious teachings; I would expect church leaders to help.