I discuss this possibility in my book, “Is There a God?” available here Is There a God?  There I describe a number of possible explanations of the Genesis 1 Creation account.  First, I propose the possibility that the “days” are a metaphorical references to successive periods of time over which God did the work of creation.  This is sometimes called the Day/Age theory.  I also describe the framework model, which proposes that the “days” are not intended to be historical or chronological, but thematic descriptions of God’s work in creation.

I also propose two versions of the Young Earth theory.  One is that the earth is young, that it was created in six literal days, and that this description is consistent with science–that science will confirm that all forms of life were created in a six day period. In other words, this model claims that, not only is the universe just a few thousand years old, but that scientific investigation will support this idea.   Finally, I propose what you are describing above.  This is another young-earth theory, but one which accepts that the scientific evidence points to an ancient earth and an ancient universe, but that God, for reasons known only to him, created the earth and the universe with an appearance of age.

Of the four, I only reject one outright, which is the third theory.  It is simply impossible to support the idea that a young earth is “scientific.”  No matter what anyone does, that the earth appears to be quite old.  Also, the universe appearing very old is a slam dunk.  Without exception, every piece of evidence about the earth and the universe points toward great age.  There is no “scientific” evidence that the earth is just a few thousand years old.

The theory you describe above? proposes that God, again for reasons known only to him, created the earth and the universe very recently, but, when he created them, he made them appear to be very old.  This model would explain the scientific evidence of age, but it would explain the data unscientifically.  In other words, the earth appears old because of a miraculous creation by an omnipotent Creator, making it appear old.

I believe that his is a possible view–I am fully convinced that an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God could so this.  John the Baptist said that God could create children of Abraham from stones, and Jesus created bread and fish out of thin air, so I believe God could do this.  However, personally, I doubt that he did.  If so, then, in essence, it seems that God would be faking us out, and I have no reason to think God would do this.  He could, but would he?  If so, then galaxies which appear to be one billion light years away (whose light would have been traveling from there one billion years), may not even exist.  And if this model is correct, then dinosaurs and other seemingly very ancient fossils represent plants and animals which never actually lived.  Why would God do this?  It seems very unlikely to me, personally.  However, I am unwilling to simply dismiss this view, and I easily fellowship with those who do so.  What I have found, however, is that few if any actually take this view, because it is philosophically so unlikely.  Christians believe that God COULD do this, but none I know believe that he DID. Most either wholly reject the young earth view, or revert to the completely insupportable “scientific” young earth model.

The same sort of response can apply to human evolution, so I will let you make the equivalent application.  What is my opinion?  I have already implied that I lean rather strongly toward the conclusion that, as science seems to imply, the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.  I see no contradiction between this and science, or between this and a reasonable, metaphorical interpretation of the “days” of creation. Again, I suggest my book, as I cover this in great detail in this book.

John Oakes