I am often asked what I believe about the origin of the world, and how I reconcile that belief with the claims of modern science. I believe that the world was created by a God of infinite wisdom and power, not by a long process of incremental development, but instantaneously, in a single act of incomprehensible and miraculous power. Anything less would be inappropriate for a divine being of such greatness. This is not a belief formed in reaction to modern ideas, nor is it based on a simple or literal reading of the Book of Genesis. Rather, it is a belief grounded in the teaching of the Church Fathers, especially Saint Augustine, who taught that the six days of creation described in Genesis were not intended to be uderstood as six literal days, but a philosophical and pedagogical framework for understanding the order in the created world–a divinely inspired explanation of natural philosophy that human readers, endowed with the gift of Reason, would be able to understand and make prudent use of. According to Saint Augustine, the entire universe was created all at once, with its principles and forms ordered according to divine wisdom. The six-day structure is meant to reveal the order that exists in Nature, not to measure time.
Because I believe that creation was instantaneous and not extended through time, I do not consider myself part of the group commonly known as “young earth creationists.” This group is largely directed by Protestants, who argue that the world was created in stages over six 24-hour days, an interpretation I do not believe is necessary or reasonable. Nevertheless, like these “creationists”, I do believe that the age of the world, from the creation of Adam to the present day, is approximately six thousand years–and that this is an extremely long period of time. This belief comes not from speculation but from the historical record preserved, without error, in Sacred Scripture. The genealogies found in Genesis, the historical books of the Old Testament, and the Gospel of Saint Luke provide a clear and coherent timeline from the first man to the birth of Christ, and from there we arrive at our own time. While the exact number of years may be debated, the general timeline places the origin of man and the created world around six thousand years ago.
This view may sound strange in our time, when it is commonly taught that the earth is over four billion years old, and that life has evolved through natural processes over hundreds of millions of years. But these claims, while popular, are not demonstrated fact, as many unreasonably assume them to be. They are not certain. They are based on assumptions, models, and extrapolations. They are not based on scientific observation or philosophical demonstration. When modern scientists speak of events that occurred millions or billions of years ago, they do so by interpreting present-day data through the lens of assumptions that should not be granted to them. Chief among these is the idea of uniformity—the belief that natural processes have always operated at the same rate and in the same way as they do now. This principle, often called uniformitarianism, is not a scientific fact. It is a philosophical assumption. And it is this assumption that allows scientists to use things like radiometric dating to calculate vast ages for rocks, fossils, and geological formations.
Radiometric dating methods, such as uranium-lead or potassium-argon dating, rely on measuring the ratio between radioactive elements and their decay products. The method assumes that the rate of decay has always been constant, that the sample has remained a closed system, and that the initial conditions of the sample are known. But none of these assumptions can be proven, especially when dealing with events allegedly occurring millions of years ago. We cannot observe those events directly, and we cannot test those initial conditions. These dating methods may provide consistent results within their framework, but they are only as reliable as the assumptions on which they rest. They are tools of estimation, not instruments of certainty. If the underlying assumptions are flawed, then the calculated ages are unreliable. This is not a radical claim. It is a reasonable one, based on the limitations of empirical science when applied to the unobservable past.
This brings us to the question of dinosaurs, which is often raised in this discussion. People ask how one can believe in a young earth, or an earth created six thousand years ago, when we are told that dinosaurs lived and became extinct sixty-five million years before man appeared. Here again, the same problem arises. The age assigned to dinosaur fossils is not observed directly. It is inferred through dating methods that rely on unproven assumptions. The fossils themselves are real, and their physical structure is impressive. But the interpretation of their age is theoretical. Furthermore, we should not imagine that the existence of dinosaur fossils requires us to accept the full evolutionary narrative. The fossils show that large and unusual creatures once lived on the earth. That is all they prove. They do not tell us when these creatures lived, or how long they existed, or why they went extinct. All such conclusions depend on interpretation.
It is also worth noting that in recent years, scientists have claimed to discover soft tissue, blood cells, and even proteins within dinosaur bones. These materials, by all accounts, should not have survived for sixty-five million years. Their presence suggests that the bones are much more recent than previously believed. While scientists have offered possible explanations—such as unusual preservation conditions or chemical stabilization—these remain speculative. The discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils does not prove a six-thousand-year-old earth, but it does call into question the certainty of the conventional timeline. It proves that the claim that the earth is billions of years old is not demonstrated by the fossil record.
In addition to the fossil record and dating methods, we must also consider the broader framework in which modern science operates. Modern science, in its current form, does not seek to interpret the world through the lens of divine creation. It operates within a naturalistic framework, often excluding any reference to God, purpose, or metaphysical principles. This is not because God is disproven or irrelevant, but because the methods of modern science limit themselves to natural causes and observable effects. As a result, the findings of science are always partial, always contingent, and always interpreted within a worldview that often ignores the deeper truths about the origin and purpose of the world.
By contrast, the Catholic understanding of creation is rooted in divine revelation and philosophical reason. It does not depend on material evidence alone, but on the harmony of truth, both natural and supernatural. The Church has never required a belief in a six-day creation, but she has always affirmed the historical reality of Adam and Eve, the original sin, and the descent of all mankind from one human pair. These are not optional doctrines. They are essential to the Catholic faith. Without them, the meaning of Christ’s redemption is lost. Evolutionary theories that deny the unity of the human race, the reality of the fall, or the special creation of man are incompatible with the Catholic understanding of salvation history.
What is ultimately at stake in this discussion is not just the age of the earth, but the foundation of our understanding of the world itself. If we begin with the belief that the world was created by God according to His wisdom and purpose, then we are free to evaluate modern scientific claims with critical discernment. We are not bound to accept speculative models as certain truths. We can ask whether the assumptions behind those models are valid. We can look at the evidence and consider whether alternative explanations are more consistent with what we know from reason and revelation.
I do not pretend to religion and philosophy can answer every curious question about the natural world and its history. I also do not believe that scientific investigation is useless and should be neglected . I simply argue that the belief in a six-thousand-year-old earth, created instantaneously by God, is reasonable, coherent, and agreeable to Catholic theology. It respects both the limits of science and the authority of divine revelation. It does not ask us to believe in myths or reject observation, but it reminds us that observation must always be interpreted, and that interpretation depends on our starting points.
If we begin with faith in God and the truth of Scripture, we will see the world differently than those who begin with naturalism. We will see creation not as a product of chance and time, but as the work of divine intelligence and power. We will see the fossils of ancient beasts not as evidence of a blind evolutionary history, but as signs of a past shaped by divine providence. We will recognize that scientific models, while useful, are not infallible. They are tools, not truths. They change over time, and they are corrected when new evidence appears.
In a world that is quick to equate scientific consensus with truth, we must be bold enough to think critically, to ask deeper questions, and to hold fast to the truths revealed by God. The age of the earth is not a matter of salvation in itself, but it touches on many doctrines that are. If we lose the sense of creation, the sense of man’s origin, and the sense of the world’s purpose, we lose our bearings. We begin to think of ourselves as accidents in a meaningless cosmos, rather than as creatures made in the image of God, called to eternal life.
The belief in a young earth, created in an instant by the hand of God, is not a retreat into ignorance. It is a return to wisdom. It is a recognition that the beginning of the world is not something we can reconstruct with instruments and calculations, but something revealed to us by the One who made it. It is a belief that restores our place in the order of things—not as evolved animals, but as rational beings, called to know, love, and serve the Creator of all.
In the end, what matters most is not the number of years the world has existed, but the meaning of its existence. We live in a divinely ordered world, not a chaotic accident. We are the children of Adam, not the offspring of irrational animals. We are called to eternal happiness, not mere survival and evolutionary theory cannot be reconciled with this transcendent purpose.
Mr. William C. Michael, O.P.
Headmaster
Classical Liberal Arts Academy
