The Role of Personal Faith in Scientic and Theological
Explanations of Earth's Origins
Ian Y.H. Chua
1, 2, 3, 4
20 December 2024
Abstract
This paper explores the philosophical foundations of two competing explanations for the
origin of the Earth: the scientic view that the Earth formed over billions of years through
natural processes, and the theological view that it was created in a short timespan
through divine intervention. Both models are analyzed for their reliance on assumptions
that extend beyond direct human observation, leading to the conclusion that each
ultimately depends on personal faith in its foundational premises. While science is often
viewed as evidence-based and theology as belief-based, this paper argues that both
frameworks rest on unprovable assumptions, making personal faith an integral
component of each.
Introduction
The origin of the Earth has long been a topic of human inquiry, invoking both scientic
investigation and theological speculation. Modern science posits that the Earth formed
approximately 4.54 billion years ago through natural processes such as accretion and
radioactive decay [1]. In contrast, certain theological perspectives assert that the Earth
was created over a short timespan, often framed as occurring several thousand years ago
[2]. While these models appear to dier fundamentally, this paper argues that both rely
on assumptions that cannot be empirically veried, rendering them faith-based in their
foundational principles.
The Scientic Model of Earth’s Origins
1.1 Scientic Methodology and Evidence
The scientic explanation for Earth’s origin is grounded in natural laws and empirical
evidence. Key evidence includes:
1. Radiometric Dating: Techniques such as uranium-lead dating indicate that the
Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old [3].
2. Cosmological Models: Observations of star formation and planetary accretion in
other systems align with the proposed timeline for Earth's formation [4].
3. Geological and Fossil Records: Layers of rock and fossilized organisms suggest a
gradual development of the Earth and life over millions of years [5].
1.2 Foundational Assumptions
While science is evidence-based, it relies on assumptions that cannot be empirically
proven, including:
1. Uniformitarianism: The principle that natural laws (e.g., radioactive decay rates)
have remained constant over time [6].
2. Inductive Reasoning: The inference that patterns observed today (e.g., sediment
deposition) operated identically in the distant past [7].
3. Existence of Observable Evidence: The assumption that indirect evidence (e.g.,
isotopic ratios) reliably reects past processes [8].
These assumptions underpin the scientic method but are not immune to philosophical
critique. If natural laws were altered in the past by unknown mechanisms, the scientic
narrative would be fundamentally disrupted.
The Theological Model of Earth’s Origins
2.1 Theological Foundations
The theological explanation for Earth’s origin often draws from sacred texts and divine
revelation. Key tenets include:
1. Divine Creation: The belief that the Earth was created by a supernatural entity,
often described as God, in a nite time period [9].
2. Special Mechanisms: The possibility that natural processes were accelerated or
altered during creation [10].
2.2 Foundational Assumptions
The theological model rests on assumptions that are also beyond empirical verication:
1. Existence of the Divine: The premise that a supernatural entity exists and
intervened in Earth’s formation [11].
2. Revelation as Truth: The reliance on sacred texts as accurate accounts of
historical events [12].
3. Purposeful Design: The assumption that Earth was created with intentionality
and meaning [13].
Philosophical Parallels Between the Models
3.1 Limits of Human Observation
Both models confront the inherent limitation of human observation:
• Scientic Model: Relies on evidence that can only be observed in the present,
extrapolated to infer the past [14].
• Theological Model: Relies on metaphysical claims that cannot be directly
observed or tested [15].
3.2 Dependence on Foundational Faith
Both models depend on a form of faith in their foundational principles:
• Science: Faith in the consistency of natural laws and the reliability of empirical
evidence [16].
• Theology: Faith in the existence and actions of a divine creator [17].
3.3 Non-Falsiability of Core Assumptions
• Scientic Model: Assumptions such as uniformitarianism are not directly
falsiable because we cannot observe the past directly [18].
• Theological Model: Assumptions about divine intervention are not testable
within the framework of natural laws [19].
Implications
The reliance on personal faith in both models has profound implications:
1. For Science: Recognizing its philosophical assumptions invites humility in its
claims about ultimate origins, emphasizing its provisional nature [20].
2. For Theology: Acknowledging its reliance on faith rather than empirical evidence
distinguishes its domain as metaphysical rather than scientic [21].
3. For Dialogue: Understanding the shared reliance on faith in foundational
assumptions can foster constructive dialogue between science and theology,
rather than framing them as inherently oppositional [22].
Conclusion
While the scientic and theological models of Earth’s origins dier in methodology and
focus, both ultimately depend on foundational assumptions that extend beyond direct
human observation. These assumptions require a form of personal faith, whether in the
constancy of natural laws or the existence of a divine creator. Recognizing this shared
reliance on faith does not diminish the value of either model but underscores the
importance of epistemological humility when addressing questions of ultimate origins.
Rather than viewing science and theology as mutually exclusive, this perspective allows
for their coexistence as complementary ways of understanding the world.
Acknowledgements
This paper was developed with the assistance of ChatGPT 4.0, which provided insights and renements in the
articulation of philosophical and scientic concepts.
1
Founder/CEO, ACE-Learning Systems Pte Ltd.
2
M.Eng. Candidate, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.
3
M.S. (Anatomical Sciences Education) Candidate, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL.
4
M.S. (Medical Physiology) Candidate, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH.
References
1. Dalrymple, G. B. (2001). The age of the Earth. Stanford University Press.
2. Morris, H. M. (2006). The Genesis ood: The biblical record and its scientic
implications. Master Books.
3. Faure, G., & Mensing, T. M. (2005). Isotopes: Principles and applications (3rd ed.). Wiley.
4. Prialnik, D. (2000). An introduction to the theory of stellar structure and evolution.
Cambridge University Press.
5. Prothero, D. R. (2013). Bringing fossils to life: An introduction to paleobiology (3rd ed.).
Columbia University Press.
6. Lyell, C. (1830). Principles of geology. John Murray.
7. Hume, D. (1739). A treatise of human nature. Oxford University Press.
8. Dalrymple, G. B. (1991). The age of the Earth. Stanford University Press.
9. Young, D. A. (1995). The biblical ood: A case study of the Church’s response to
extrabiblical evidence. Eerdmans.
10. Whitcomb, J. C., & Morris, H. M. (1961). The Genesis ood. Presbyterian & Reformed
Publishing.
11. Craig, W. L. (1979). The Kalam cosmological argument. Harper & Row.
12. Augustine, S. (397). Confessions. Penguin Classics.
13. Paley, W. (1802). Natural theology. Oxford University Press.
14. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientic discovery. Hutchinson.
15. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientic revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
16. Hawking, S. (1988). A brief history of time. Bantam Books.
17. Aquinas, T. (1274). Summa Theologica. Christian Classics.
18. Gould, S. J. (1987). Time’s arrow, time’s cycle: Myth and metaphor in the discovery of
geological time. Harvard University Press.
19. Plantinga, A. (2000). Warranted Christian belief. Oxford University Press.
20. Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea. Simon & Schuster.
21. Swinburne, R. (2004). The existence of God (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
22. Barbour, I. G. (1997). Religion and science: Historical and contemporary issues.
HarperOne.
