A Short Take on "Last Thursdayism"

Informative Article

"Last Thursdaynism" is the unpopular belief that everything that's now in existence was created last Thursday. It goes against science and everything we've ever learned, but do believers have a point?

by Sindu Vipparthy

The perception that everything was created last Thursday. The belief that human intelligence doesn’t go past last Thursday. The thought that last Wednesday never existed. It’s called “Last Thursdayism”.

The idea of “Last Thursdayism” was entirely branched off of religious ideas. It’s a product of certain theologists, better dubbed “creationists”, that disobeyed the laws of science and took a different perspective of the creation of our universe.

Creationists are people that believe in God’s instantaneous creation of everything on Earth just 6,000 years ago. Modern creationists have developed their theory in many ways, from the existence of “virtual history” to the false appearance of age. They go against everything that we’ve learned in science: our 13.8 billion-year-old universe, the evolution of biodiversity on Earth, the steady development in our knowledge about the world around us.

The general public has already rejected this theory on the basis of everything practical and scientific. But taking a different approach to this seemingly bizarre theory might allow them to perceive this unpopular belief differently.

And that’s where the trilemma is presented. Is instantaneous creation something to be considered, or does it branch too far from the laws of science? Or is there a neutral perspective? Well, let’s find out.

The Creationist Perspective:

This religion-based theory dates back to the 4th century. Ephrem the Syrian was a theologian that believed in the Divine Entity’s instantaneous creations of life on Earth. He described:

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...years old as they were fully grown and fruits were already budding on their branches.”

Later on, in the 19th century, this debate rose up again. In the midst of controversy and heated arguments between the practical thinkers and creation thinkers, the infamous Philip Henry Gosse published Omphalos in 1857. He emphasized that the religious traditions (the belief of instantaneous creation) were, in fact, correct. He said that the Earth was created with organisms with false signs of development (for example, hair that grows over time) and entire mature biological systems. Gosse also portrayed fossils as just part of the “creation work”; they were merely just there as a result of instantaneous creation and, therefore, can’t be used in science to prove the Earth’s age.

Other theologians rejected this theory due to him “misinterpreting God’s words” and on the basis of uniformitarianism (the belief that the scientific laws that apply now have applied since the beginning of the universe). Gosse’s work turned out to be unpopular, however, played a part in influencing the thoughts of modern creationist thinkers.

John D. Morris, a creationist and the president of the Institute for Creation Research in Texas, expresses his thoughts about the false appearance of age in our world. He writes:

“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.”

Another modern creation thinker, Dr. Aardsma, develops their perception of “virtual history” in a letter to another user on their website. Virtual history, as they explain it, is a phenomenon that occurs before actual creation. They use the analogy of Bilbo in the Hobbit to explain their point: