Does God Mislead Scientists About the Age of the World?

Dvir asks: "Hello! According to the Torah, the world has existed for almost 5,800 years, but scientists claim the world is billions of years old. If that's true, did Hashem intend to mislead the scientists?"

* * *

First of all, we must distinguish between science and scientific theory. We must remember that there is no sophisticated machine invented that can tell us the ages of objects inserted into it. From a scientific perspective, an old rock does not look different on the outside from a young rock. All the calculations for the age of the world are conducted by researchers on paper, but they do not exist in observable nature. No rock is labeled "56 million years old".

Researchers arrive at these ages through human calculations. And such calculations, by their nature, can lead to errors: any change in the amount of carbon, for example, can cause results where fresh organisms are dated tens of thousands of years. Data unknown to science could disrupt dating methods. Another example is when scientists believed that stalactites formed very slowly over millions of years, but in recent generations, completely new stalactites were discovered to have formed within a few dozen years (examples were found in the Lincoln Memorial and the Big Room of Sequoia).

 We must distinguish between human assumptions and scientific facts. For example, gravity is a scientific fact because it can be observed in experimentation and tested through scientific observation. Exact sciences are also called "empirical science". In contrast, claims that deal with the study of the past cannot be proven through scientific observation, and therefore, they are only human theories that may be replaced by other theories in the future.

It's enough to ask the researcher who believes in the vast ages of trees and stones: "Were you there? Did you see how things happened? If not, then how can you be sure how it really occurred?"

Science, as known, is not something that can be argued with; science is observable and can be replicated in a laboratory and perceived with our senses. We do not currently see scientists who believe the world is flat because science has proven the world is spherical. In contrast, we find religious scientists who claim the world is young and bring evidence to their claims. This demonstrates to us that the topic of the world's age is subject to much scientific interpretation and is not an unequivocal fact as it is presented in the media.

 Now let's clarify, how do scientists actually arrive at calculations with results of millions of years? Anyone examining these calculations cannot help but notice that they are always based on the initial assumption - that there was no divine intervention in the creation of the world.

For example, one scientist looks at a vast canyon, examines the changes in the land over several decades, and notes them down in a journal. Based on this, he determines the fact: "According to the calculations of rock erosion, this canyon was naturally formed over 200 million years." He does not entertain the idea that a creator intentionally made the world, brought the land from the waters, and established the mountains and valleys within it.

Another scientist looks at the stars, examines the expansion of the galaxy, and determines the fact: "According to the calculations, it took two billion years for the star's light to naturally reach Earth." He does not imagine the possibility that a creator created the universe intentionally, moving the stars to their current position in space as part of his plan to create the world.

Yet another scientist calculates the decay of a particular material or the time it takes a stalactite to form, and based on these, he determines that stalactite caves or canyons formed over millions of years. He does not contemplate the possibility that a creator made a world with stalactites or hastened processes that would otherwise naturally take millions of years.

 Everything depends on the perspective. One who believes the universe arose on its own through natural processes calculates from this presumption how canyons were "self-formed" over millions of years and how long it took for starlight to "self-arrive" on Earth. On the other hand, one who understands that the universe was intentionally created by Hashem also comprehends that these processes did not occur "on their own" but were shaped through calculated and divine intervention to achieve the state the creator intended in creation.

The creator did not mislead us for a moment, and it seems that we are the ones misleading ourselves with various theoretical calculations that disregard his providence. I find it amusing sometimes to hear scientists claim: "It is not possible that the creator would mislead us when the calculations show us how millions of years have passed until the world consolidated into its current form naturally..." - This seems to me a self-contradictory claim.

In any case, it is possible that Hashem worked over millions of years, and there is perhaps such an interpretation in Kabbalah, known as "The Doctrine of the Shemittot". Hashem is, as known, eternal and has no concept of time because he is beyond time. The sages claimed about the Torah that it was: "hidden nine hundred and seventy-four generations before the world was created" (Shabbat 88, page b). In another Midrash, the sages told that there were additional worlds (spiritual or physical) before our world: "From here was Hashem creating and destroying worlds, creating worlds and destroying them until he created these" (Genesis Rabbah, 3, 9). These Midrashim have received many interpretations, and they belong to the realm of secrets and Kabbalah that require further explanation.

These quotes do not intend to explain currently that the world is billions of years old, but since these matters touch on the doctrine of secrets, we would not be alarmed by such an interpretation if it were proven with absolute certainty that the world is ancient. Let us not forget that the science of the age of the world currently relies on extrapolations and theories that may change and not on obligatory empirical science. Therefore, we have no justified reason to interpret the Torah according to these theories.