When I start bandying about phrases like "best of all possible worlds," it certainly seems that we need to discuss Heaven. I'm sure everyone has their own ideas about it. Many cynics take their shots, but really, it's where we all want to end up. Popular culture would have us believe it's all airy and cloudy and peaceful and away up there somewhere. My view of it is somewhat different. From what I read, Heaven is not a far off, unknown destination. In fact, it seems to me that we're really on the second leg of a round-trip. You see, I think of Heaven as being our original hometown, though we may know it by another name: Eden.
As we've mentioned before, all non-theists accept the existence of the material universe and the laws under which it appears to operate. In addition, they believe they have won the debate over the origin of the universe. Many theists concede them the point. The issue is often portrayed as a conflict between science and faith, or science and religion, or reason and faith, or some combination thereof. This, I believe, is not accurate. The conflict would seem to be between the conclusions of modern scientific thought and the plain text of the Biblical creation account. Faith and reason are compatible, but evolution has no place for Adam.
Most non-theists resolve the conflict by simply dismissing the Genesis account as a complete fabrication. One must admit the presence of certain elements common to many of the myths of other religions. Many Jews and Christians consider the early chapters to be figurative, and hold to what they consider the basic truths presented there: that God created the universe, is sovereign over it, and that it did not turn out the way He wanted. Most six-day creationists resolve the conflict by labeling evolution a "theory", and attacking evolutionists' evidence, methods, and assumptions, some of which are very vulnerable to that attack.
But, simply presenting evidence that evolution does not have as solid a foundation as scientists claim doesn't move us much towards proving biblical creationism to be true. It's not a choice between only those two alternatives. And so, we have "creation scientists" who present evidence which supposedly points to a young earth. They try and support their claims by stretching biblical passages to fit their arguments, even though many of these passages are clearly poetic in nature. Personally, I find such "creation science" to be pure bunk, perpetrated by unqualified pseudo-scholars prone to specious logic and an unwillingness to find truth anywhere but the Bible.
Can a reasonable and reasoning being simply dismiss the wealth of scientific evidence pointing to an old universe? I think not. Can that same being hold faith that the biblical account is factual and that the universe is quite young? I think so, which may surprise you after reading the last paragraph. The conflict can be resolved by understanding that the assumptions made by both "evolution scientists" and "creation scientists" are not necessarily valid.
The first assumption, made primarily by evolutionists, is that the universal laws have not changed and will not change. This is not an unreasonable assumption, but it is still just an assumption. All old-universe conclusions are based on the idea that the universe has always behaved just like it behaved when the scientist was watching. Much of modern cosmology falls apart if the speed of light in a vacuum was ever much different than it is now. If we cannot be sure that the circumstances of five thousand (or million, or billion) years ago are directly applicable to today's circumstances or the circumstances five thousand (or million, or billion) years from now, we cannot be sure of anything related to phenomena requiring that long to occur.
The second assumption, made equally by both sides, and far less reasonably so, is that one could necessarily tell the difference between a naturally-developed universe and a supernaturally-created universe. It seems obvious to me that a scientist, using only methods and equipment operating under natural laws, could never directly detect the existence or involvement of a supernatural agent. If given a supernaturally-created object only a few minutes old that was identical to an object which naturally developed over the course of several years, how could a scientist reach any other conclusion but that the new object was actually several years old? In short, it seems nearly impossible for any creation to occur without the created object having an apparent age greater than its actual age.
Let us examine the miracles of Jesus. It is not necessary for the reader to believe that these miracles actually occurred; they are, at this point, merely explanatory analogies. His first reported miracle was the creation of wine. Most people would consider it a transmutation rather than a creation, but the fact remains that wine came to exist where no wine existed before. If a scientist was given a sample of that wine, would he be able to perform some test that showed it was wholly brought into being in an instant? I see no good reason to think so. Yes, it was good wine, better than the wine that had already been served, but it was still recognizable as wine and functioned as wine. It would still appear to be the product of the fermentation of juice squeezed from grapes harvested from vines grown from seed planted by a vintner, etc., in a process ultimately going back to the beginning of the universe. The loaves and fish at the feedings of the multitudes were supernaturally created, yet I expect the loaves to appear to all tests to have been baked from flour ground from grain, and the fish to appear to have been dried after being caught while swimming in a lake or stream. The scientist with samples of both the natural and supernatural foodstuffs would not be able to tell them apart. The scientist would not be able to determine that the supernatural bread had never touched an oven or that the supernatural fish had never actually been alive. Similarly, I find no good reason to think that a created universe, which subsequent to its creation must operate under natural laws, would appear any different than a universe that developed naturally under those same laws.
Oddly, many creationists reject this argument, even though it completely resolves the original question. Some feel that the argument is unnecessarily complicated, since they feel no compulsion to treat the Genesis text as factually true. Others feel that it would be deceptive on God's part to create a universe that looks older than it actually is. But, these last usually don't feel the same way about Jesus creating a piece of bread that looked older than it actually was. Why not? I think it's because it is obvious that Jesus did not create the piece of bread for the purpose of convincing anyone that the bread was older than it actually was. In other words, deception does not truly occur where there is no intent to deceive. Jesus' purpose was entirely different. It is just as obvious to me that God's purposes had nothing to do with convincing us that the universe is old. If we could only see the stars within a few thousand light years, what would we know of galaxies, stellar formation, or the true vastness of space? If the cliffs and canyons of the world seemed "new", what could we learn of plate tectonics and large-scale erosion? God granted us reason and wants us to understand His creation. It would seem almost cruel of Him to expect us to try and figure out the natural laws of the universe given only the evidence of objects not conforming to those laws.
In addition, one cannot create a convincing case for deception when the supposed perpetrator of the deception creates a document completely explaining the actual truth of the matter. In effect, the Bible says, "Don't be fooled into believing only in what you can see and taste and test. I created everything, here's how I did it, and here's what happened next."
Well, we all know what happened next: Adam, Eve, the serpent, the Fall, and the start of the world as we know and experience it. But, what was it like before that, before everything changed? I believe the whole of existence was in perfect communion with the Creator. Adam and Eve had a relationship with God, with each other, and with nature that is completely unimaginable to our earthbound minds. They lived in a world without danger or pain, a world without spite or arrogance, a world of complete freedom and security. In short, it was Heaven. Again, I believe that the Heaven of our future will be much like this Heaven of our past. The Bible indicates that those in Heaven will have responsibilities and relationships. There will be a society in which to participate, an environment to celebrate and enjoy without the impediments that exist here on earth. Everyone there will want to be there, and will be glad of everyone else who is there. If there is any sadness at all, it will be in the thought of those who chose not to be there. It will, indeed, be the best of all possible worlds, and those who are in that world will understand all of the suffering and apparent senslessness of their past experiences.