World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Omphalos hypothesis

Article Id: WHEBN0000022700
Reproduction Date:

Title: Omphalos hypothesis  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Falsifiability, Swampman, Local skepticism, Philip Henry Gosse, Omphalos
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

Omphalos hypothesis

The Omphalos hypothesis is the argument that God created the world recently (in the last ten thousand years, in keeping with Flood geology), but complete with signs of great age. It was named after the title of an 1857 book, Omphalos by Philip Henry Gosse, in which Gosse argued that in order for the world to be "functional", God must have created the Earth with mountains and canyons, trees with growth rings, Adam and Eve with hair, fingernails, and navels (omphalos is Greek for "navel"), and that therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the earth and universe can be taken as reliable. The idea saw some revival in the 20th century by some creationists, who extended the argument to light that appears to originate in far-off stars and galaxies (although other creationists reject this explanation[1]). Many creationists believe that Adam and Eve had no navels, and that the trees in the Garden of Eden had no growth rings.[2]


Although the grasses were only a moment old at their creation, they appeared as if they were months old. Likewise, the trees, although only a day old when they sprouted forth, were nevertheless like ... years old as they were fully grown and fruits were already budding on their branches.[3]

Chateaubriand wrote in his 1802 book, Génie du christianisme (Part I Book IV Chapter V): "God might have created, and doubtless did create, the world with all the marks of antiquity and completeness which it now exhibits." Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb supports a similar position, arguing further that the evidence for an old universe[4] is strong: "The bones, artifacts, partially decayed radium, potassium-argon, uranium, the red-shifted light from space, etc.– all of it points to a greater age which nevertheless is not true."

Creationists still argue the same way. For instance, John D. Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research talks about the "appearance of age":

When Adam was created, he no doubt looked like a mature adult, fully able to walk, talk, care for the garden, etc. When God created fruit trees, they were already bearing fruit. In each case, what He created was functionally complete right from the start—able to fulfill the purpose for which it was created. Stars, created on Day Four, had to be seen to perform their purpose of usefulness in telling time; therefore, their light had to be visible on Earth right from the start.[5]

He does not extend this idea to the geological record, preferring to believe that it was all created in the Flood, but others such as Gerald E. Aardsma go further, with his idea of "virtual history". This appears to suggest that events after the creation have changed the "virtual history" we now see, including the fossils:

This raises one more major point of difference, the handling of the Fall. Briefly, Creation with Appearance of Age runs into a theological snag with things like fossils of fish with other smaller fish in their stomachs: "Do you mean that God chose to paint, of all things, a facade of SUFFERING and DEATH onto the creation when He gave it this arbitrary appearance of age at the time of creation?" The virtual history paradigm recognizes simply that all creation type miracles entail a virtual history, so the Fall, with its creation type miracles (by which the nature of the creation was changed --- "subjected to futility") carried with it its own (fallen) virtual history, which is the virtual history we now see. We do not see the original utopian pre-Fall creation with its (presumably utopian) virtual history.[6]

The past president of the Missouri Association for Creation has said:

The appearance of age in the things which God created is a much-debated issue in contemporary Christian scientific circles. Can God -- or more accurately -- would God create something which at the very moment of its creation has the appearance of age? The short answer to this question may be: How Else? How, indeed, could God create anything that did not appear to us to be aged (like a fine wine) at the moment of its creation... Maybe you thought of a visible star -- depending on its distance from the earth, its light might appear to have been traveling for over a billion years to reach your eyes. All of these things would have the appearance of age and an ongoing process at the very moment of their creation.[7]


When did false history begin?

Though Gosse's original Omphalos hypothesis specifies a popular creation story, others have proposed that the idea does not preclude creation as recently as five minutes ago, including memories of times before this created in situ.[8] This idea is sometimes called "Last Thursdayism" by its opponents, as in "the world might as well have been created last Thursday." The concept is both unverifiable and unfalsifiable through any conceivable scientific method—in other words, it is impossible even in principle to subject it to any form of test by reference to any empirical data because the empirical data themselves are considered to have been arbitrarily created to look the way they do at every observable level of detail.

A deceptive creator

From a religious viewpoint, it can be interpreted as God having 'created a fake,' such as illusions of light in space of stellar explosions (supernovae) that never really happened, or volcanic mountains that were never really volcanoes in the first place and that never actually experienced erosion.

This conception has therefore drawn harsh rebuke from some theologians. Reverend Canon Brian Hebblethwaite,[9] for example, preached against Bertrand Russell's Five minute hypothesis:[10]

The basis for Hebblethwaite's objection, however, is the presumption of a God that would not deceive us about our very humanity - an unprovable presumption that the Omphalos hypothesis rejects at the outset. Hebblethwaite also suggests that God necessarily had to create certain elements of the Universe in combination with the creation of man:

In a rebuttal of the claim that God might have implanted a false history of the age of the Universe in order to test our faith in the truth of the Torah, Rabbi Natan Slifkin, an author whose works have been banned by several Haredi rabbis for going against the tenets of the Talmud,[12] writes:

Gosse, however, did not assert that God deceived us, only that any act of creation of human, animal or plant would "at the instant of its creation present indubitable evidences of a previous history"[14] in far more subtle, microscopic and unavoidable ways than the presence or absence of hair or navels. He presented it not as an hypothesis but as a law or [15] The alternative, he argued, would be a created earth in which trees (larger than saplings) would exhibit no seasonal growth rings.

A consistent creator

Some Jewish commentaries on the age of the Universe delve into the Omphalos hypothesis. In particular, rabbi Natan Slifkin writes:

Other formulations

Five-minute hypothesis

The five-minute hypothesis is a skeptical hypothesis put forth by the philosopher Bertrand Russell that proposes that the universe sprang into existence five minutes ago from nothing, with human memory and all other signs of history included. It is a commonly used example of how one may maintain extreme philosophical skepticism with regards to memory.[10]

Borges Tlön work

Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius, describes a fictional world in which some essentially follow as a religious belief a philosophy much like Russell's discussion on the logical extreme of Gosse's theory:[18]

Borges had earlier written a short essay, "The Creation and P. H. Gosse" [19] that explored the rejection of Gosse's Omphalos. Borges argued that its unpopularity stemmed from Gosse's explicit (if inadvertent) outlining of what Borges characterized as absurdities in the Genesis story.

Last Thursdayism

Last Thursdayism is a similar response to omphalism which posits that, by the same logic, the world might have been created last Thursday (or by implication, on any other given date and time), but with the appearance of age: people's memories, history books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and so forth. It is aimed at the logic point that when this logic is permitted, it can be used to prove any "fixed date creation" schema. The first known reference is on November 2, 1992, in a Usenet post titled "Last Thursdayism proven!", responding to an apocalyptic prediction:[20]

It developed on into a satiric parody religion with a catechism;[21] other postings started the "heretical" splinter groups Last Wednesdayism and Last Fridayism. Another version, claiming not to be a parody, incorporates ideas from solipsism.[22]

See also


  1. ^ How can we see distant stars in a young universe?
  2. ^ Did Adam have a belly-button?
  3. ^ Kathleen McVey, ed. (1994). "Commentary on Genesis. Section I.22". St.  
  4. ^ Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb, "The Age of the Universe".
  5. ^ Morris, John D. (1990). "Did God Create with Appearance of Age?". Acts & Facts 19, (9). Retrieved 14 Feb 2013. 
  6. ^ Aardsma, Gerald E. "Correspondence: Virtual History". Retrieved 13 Feb 2013. 
  7. ^ Menton, David N. (August 1995). "Creation and the Appearance of Age". St. Louis MetroVoice. Vol. 5, No. 8 (Missouri Association for Creation). Retrieved 13 Feb 2013. 
  8. ^ David L. Wilcox, God and Evolution:A Faith-Based Understanding, Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 2004, 30,
  9. ^ Reverend Canon Brian Hebblethwaite, biography online at
  10. ^ a b  
  11. ^ a b Reverend Canon Brian Hebblethwaite, In Defence of Christianity March 6, 2005, p. 4-5
  12. ^ G. Safran, "Gedolei Yisroel Condemn Rabbi Nosson Slifkin's Books". Dei'ah veDibur, January 12, 2005.
  13. ^ Slifkin, p167
  14. ^ (Gosse, p335)
  15. ^ (p336)
  16. ^ Slifkin, Natan. Challenge of Creation, Zootorah 2006, page 161
  17. ^ a b Slifkin, p164
  18. ^ Borges - Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius
  19. ^  
  20. ^ Seanna Watson (1992-11-02). "Last Thursdayism proven!".  
  21. ^ Micheal Keane (1996-08-25). "Church of Last Thursday FAQ".  
  22. ^ "Last Thursday Catechism". Retrieved 2008-03-06. 

External links

  • Ron Roizen, "The rejection of Omphalos: a note on shifts in the intellectual hierarchy of mid-nineteenth century Britain," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 21:365-369, 1982.
  • Mirror of the defunct "The Church Of Last Thursdayism" webpage (stored at
  • Archived Usenet Post containing the FAQ of "The Church of Last Thursdayism" (stored by
  • "The Church of Last Thursday" home
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.