I’d also like to point out another (in a long list) of modern-man’s false dichotomies. The debate of young earth vs old earth is not what most people think it is.
Young earth means that creation itself is roughly 6,000 years old. That’s supported by scripture, saints and many mystics. It’s pretty darn near dogma.
But then people hear of “old earth” and think that it means the opposite of the above (ie having to do with the years of creation, that the world is millions of years old). That’s wrong.
The “old earth” theory means that God created the earth, the solar system and Adam/Eve in a mature state. When God created all the plants in Eden, they weren’t in seed form which then had to grow. He created all things as “adult”, mature and perfected. Just like Adam/Eve. Tradition tells us that Adam was created as a mature man, of the age of 33.
Modern science assumes everything started from scratch, from seed form, from the beginning. So when they study the sun, as an example, they’ll say — the increased solar flares are a sign of an aging sun. (Which is true). So the sun must be X billion years old if it’s already dying. Of course, this all assumes that the sun was created with some type of long term life cycle. Whereas God knows how long the earth will live and He created things for that time period and no longer.
So it all comes down to bad terminology. “Young earth” is correct because the world and creation is only 6,000ish years old. The term “old earth” should be changed to “mature earth” because it’s not the opposite of “young earth” at all. A “mature earth” is also true (which is why St Kolbe) agreed with it (and why the Church Fathers taught) — that the earth was created in a mature state, with growth not needed, because God chose to create everything perfectly, which means no growth, no development, no improvement — perfect from day 1. Which is why Adam/Eve were created as adults.
Both terms are correct. It’s not either/or, the false dichotomy trap of modern man’s faulty mind.