Of
Schools and
I visited school today. And I could observe for one day only.
I found that children are not randomly distributed. They are grouped by average height. And these heights seem related to the numbers on the classroom doors. The children within the Grade 1 room are much smaller than those labeled Grade 8.
Within each group, some children are larger or smaller than others. But in general, I believe my observation holds: Smaller children are in rooms with lower grade numbers; larger children correlate with larger grade numbers. Yet although I made careful measurements all day, no children appeared to be growing.
I am struggling to interpret my observations:
1. Maybe children do not change in size. The small ones have always been small, and the large ones large. For many years the same children have attended this school. All of them are old, and of about the same age.
OR
2. Perhaps the children are all the same age, but very young. The whole school, with all its children, came into existence only last week. The children were of different sizes when they started, and remain so. And we simply don't know how they came to be sorted by size.
OR
3. Maybe the children are truly of different ages. The smaller children are younger, and the larger ones older. The small children have been in school only a short time, while the larger ones have been there for several years. Maybe children grow in size, and transfer at intervals to rooms bearing higher grade numbers. Maybe my one-day observation was too brief to be sure.
OR
4. Maybe there are better explanations that have not occurred to me.
I wish I could have stayed longer, or visited on other days, but I can't. And if I base my conclusions on just this one visit, I can't prove that any of these interpretations is either true or false.
Today I visited tropical islands.
Some have bare lava, too hot to touch. In some, the bare lava is cool. Some also have soil, which appears to be the product of weathered lava. Tall islands have steep, apparently eroded slopes, but few coral reefs.
Some islands show no sign of recent volcanic activity. Their hills seem sculpted by rain and wind. They have streams and valleys. And they are surrounded by growing reefs.
Other islands have only low hills. Their fringing reefs are larger and thicker.
Some islands are surrounded by a lagoon, beyond which is a barrier reef.
Some islands are very low, with no hills. These have large fringing and barrier reefs, the high points of which break the surface to become coral islands.
Some islands occur as atolls, circles of coral islands, with no central volcano at all.
The
I am struggling to interpret my observations:
1. Maybe tropical islands do not change in size. The flat ones have always been flat, and the tall ones tall. Some have always had large reefs; some have always had thin or no reefs. All these islands are very old, and of about the same age.
OR
2. Perhaps the islands are all the same age, but very young. The whole ocean, with all its islands, came into existence only last week. Perhaps they had different forms when they started, and remain the same. And we simply don't know how they were sorted by height and type of reef.
OR
3. Maybe the islands are truly of different ages. The taller islands with thin reefs are younger, and the flat ones with thick reefs are older. The tall islands are of recent origin, and have cleared the ocean surface for a relatively short time; while the low ones have been both eroding and building reefs for much longer. Maybe islands wax and wane, as do their reefs. Maybe my observation was too brief to be sure.
OR
4. Maybe there are better explanations that have not occurred to me.
I wish I could stay longer, or check on the islands every few hundred years, but I can't. And if I base my conclusions on just their present state. I can't prove that any of these interpretations is either true or false.
I can imagine conditions under which coral might grow rapidly: nutrient-rich water, ideal temperatures, soft winds, no storms, little rain, a slowly subsiding island.
I can imagine conditions under which a volcanic island can rapidly erode: severe and frequent storms, strong winds and shifting temperatures. But this erosion would pollute the water with silt. So rapid volcanic growth and rapid erosion seem to prevent rapid coral growth. It's easier to imagine that both processes have been slow.
Isaiah 51:6 suggests that the earth can "wear out like a garment."
Hebrews 1:10, 11 applies this aging process to earth's very foundations.
Can we agree that tropical islands are the exposed tops of undersea mountains?
Deuteronomy 33:15 describes mountains as both ancient and lasting. Yet within my lifetime, we have greeted some mountains as new arrivals, while we've seen others blow themselves up.
Some biblical passages describe mountains as melted, shaken, submerged, or removed. Habakkuk 3:6 notes that even the "everlasting" mountains can be scattered.
Yes, both mountain building and destruction may be catastrophic. But these exciting events appear to be the exception, rather than the norm. And we seem able to identify these rare events when they occur.
Most mountains and tropical islands give the appearance of both great age and slow change. If I admit the obvious, can I still be a "Bible-believing Christian?" Does the Bible insist on a very compressed geological history, or is that merely one interpretation among others?
I suppose that God could have given the earth the appearance of great age when he created it 6,000 years ago. Or he might have done the same thing only last week. But in each case, may I ask why? Why would God choose to create sedimentary rocks, mountains, fossils, coral islands, and radioactive clocks, in a form which suggests great age, if they are truly very young?
Coral islands seem both to grow and to die, but too slowly for us to observe. Children also seem to grow, but too slowly for me to detect in a single day. Maybe someday I'll visit school again. Until then, I hope it's orthodox to suppose that children are truly of different ages, and that all of them are growing up.
©2004,
R. Wresch, M.D.