Those two "beliefs" are in no way related to each other, dear sister in Christ.
What science has shown is that the age of the earth is around 4.7 billion years; the age of the universe around 14 billion years. I do not find this at all alarming. The disparity between the Bible's statement, interpreted literally, that the Earth is 6,000 years old, is completely reconciled to these scientific observations, it seems to me, if one grasps the concept of relativistic time, so beautifully illustrated by Alamo-Girl and TXnMA.
Regarding Hugh Ross' statement RE: God's Word (Logos) being "both the energizing force behind the Big Bang and the director of [the] evolutionary process" — I agree with it. But it's important to understand that Ross is NOT referencing anything like Darwinian evolution here.
We know that the ways of our Lord "far surpasseth human understanding." Yet we also know that the Word of God is Truth: God does not ever lie to us.
I believe God gave us, not only the Revelation of Himself in the Holy Scriptures, but three other revelations of Himself as well: The Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, Logos, Son of God; the Book of Creation (i.e., the natural world); and the Holy Spirit Who abides with us. Romans 1:20 underscores the third revelation: God wants us to glorify Him by seeing His glory in the things He has made. So I do not scorn or fear the natural sciences. It is only the abuse of science that I deplore, with the uttermost contempt.
Which brings us to Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory does not deal with the origin of life. But I note that most Darwinists attribute the origin of life to matter, which somehow willy-nilly bootstraps itself up to life and consciousness for no reason at all. It "just happened." And then "evolution" got started.
Of course, this idea is patently absurd. For these Darwinist ninnies can't even tell you what "matter" IS, let alone how it makes itself "alive" and, eventually, conscious.
Recently, theoretical physicists' researches are turning up some extraordinarily arresting insights into the nature of "matter." Increasingly, it is being hypothesized as a form of Light.
Thus the Word of God in the Beginning — "Let there be Light," or "Let Light Be" — acquires a significance more profound than we humans have ever imagined heretofore. This was the Word of Creation....
As far as earlier men being "primitive" compared with ourselves now living, an important distinction needs to be made. I believe that the nature of man is a created nature that does not change. That is, human nature, and as a corollary, the human condition does not change over all of time. What does change is human knowledge of the world. It is on that basis alone that we can say that earlier men are "primitive" as compared to ourselves. But again, in no other way.
Important to note: The progress of science over the course of human history has been built on the successive insights of men more "primitive" than we....
Of course, if human nature, as God-created and -endowed, is the Truth of the matter — and I do not doubt that it is — then Darwinian evolution is a fairy story which somehow, through malfeasance, constitutes a revolt against the Creator God. Notwithstanding, it is probably the most powerful myth of our time.
It is, simply put, an abuse of science. But that doesn't mean that the universe can't somehow be an evolutionary process.
If God wanted to unfold His Creation thattaway, what's our beef?
Anyhoot, my credo, FWIW....
Thank you so very much, dear sister in Christ, for your spirited essay/post! May God's Love and Grace and Peace and Light be with you always!
To preclude the conflation of them (either through ignorance -- or in deliberate attempt to confuse the issues for dogmatic purposes -- I propose (and have long been using) the following:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The universe DEVELOPED from its inception state into its current state (IMHO, under the plan, design and guidance of our Creator).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
According to Darwin, et al, life "EVOLVED" (under the "random" driving force of mutation[s]) -- purely without guidance.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As far as I have been able to determine, LIFE also DEVELOPED from its inception state into its current state (IMHO, under the plan, design and guidance of our Creator).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So... for clarity, (and to avoid the opprobrium attached to it) I propose that we "ONLY" use the term, "EVOLUTION" and its derivitaves -- when specifically discussing "BIOLOGICAL DARWINISM" and its derivatives.
And, that we use the term, "DEVELOPMENT" and its derivatives when discussing "how things -- both living and cosmological -- came to be as they now are" .
We are to look and see what He has done:
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: - Romans 1:20