Storming Young-Earth Creationism | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2009 > April

Christianity Today, April, 2009 |

Storming Young-Earth Creationism

But is Genesis 1 the only text at issue?

Review by Marcus R. Ross | posted 4/30/2009 10:00AM

Related articles and links |

1 of 1

The Bible, Rocks and Time
by Davis A. Young and Ralph F. Stearley
IVP Academic, September 2008
510 pp., $21.99

In The Bible, Rocks and Time (IVP Academic), geologists and Reformed Christians Davis Young and Ralph Stearley try to convince young-earth creationists (YECs) to abandon their position. First, they argue that the Creation account in Genesis 1 need not be understood as a historical narrative documenting the creation of the universe and its inhabitants in six normal (rotational) days. Second, they argue that the data from geology point unwaveringly to a planet of exceedingly ancient age.

I particularly appreciated Young and Stearley's historical overview of church beliefs on Genesis and Creation. Their careful documentation puts to rest the claims of other old-earth proponents that the church fathers held views compatible with an ancient earth. They likewise present the origins of modern geology well, particularly within the broader historical backdrop of Christian influences on scientific thought.

But BR&T is essentially a negative critique. Theologically, the authors seek to show that Genesis 1 need not be understood as describing six rotational days. But if so, which competing view should we adopt? They clearly dislike the "ruin-reconstruction theory" or "gap theory" (there was a large gap of time between the first and second verses of Genesis), and display reservations about the day-age view (the six days were much longer periods). The authors favor some kind of allegorical view (e.g., the "framework hypothesis"), but are steadfast that they will not make a positive case for any of these. The result is that the authors do not present their own views clearly enough for critical evaluation.

The authors' discussion of Noah's Flood is similarly vague. They argue strongly against the Flood as a global, geologically formative event in history. But what are Christians to make of Genesis 6-9? BR&T makes no case for what the Flood actually was, or whether the authors even believe it occurred.

BR&T, though rigorously argued and well-documented, is too limited. It is not that the arguments do not hit hard against YEC—they do. The YEC community should learn from this work. But a robust concept of the Creation cannot be articulated when Genesis 1 is evaluated in near isolation from other relevant Scripture (e.g., Gen. 2, 3, 6-11; Rom. 1 and 8; 2 Pet. 3). Were Adam and Eve historical individuals? Where was the Garden of Eden? Was the Fall an actual event? And how does this relate to evil? These and many other questions are never addressed.

Young-earth creationism is a complex system. YEC's conception of history includes not merely a six-rotational-day Creation, but also a young age of the earth, miraculous creation of plant and animal life, a commitment to a historical Adam and Eve, a historical Fall with universal spiritual and physical consequences, and a global catastrophe.

This comprehensive framework fosters understandings of sin, the problem of evil, divine nature, judgment, Christ as the Second Adam, salvation, and eschatological redemption. A full view of the Creation can only be acquired from the whole of Scripture—from Genesis to Revelation—not by focusing, even intently, on but one chapter.

Marcus R. Ross, assistant professor of geology at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia

Related Elsewhere:

The Bible, Rocks and Time is available at ChristianBook.com and other book retailers.

Christianity Today has more book reviews.

Other articles on origins include:

At Origins' Margins | Michael Behe wonders how much Darwinism can really explain. (March 27, 2008)

Living with the Darwin Fish | Why the discovery of yet another 'missing link' doesn't destroy my faith. (March 12, 2007)

The Art of Debating Darwin | How to intelligently design a winning case for God's role in creation. (September 1, 2004)

Intelligent Design: Searching for a Blueprint | Discovery Institute reshapes the orgins debate. (November 15, 1999)

1 of 1

share this page

April 2009, Vol. 53, No. 4

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment

Reader Reviews are below

Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.

If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.

Click here for international orders

2-for-1 Gifts!

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Displaying 1 - 3 of 114 comments.

See all comments

Fred	Posted: May 10, 2009 10:36 PM


I think that as Christians, the problem we have is when some of our brothers and sisters misinterpret the Bible by taking it as the literal word of God. It is not. There is no conflict between Christianity, including creationism, and science if you just realize that the Bible is a guide, written by men inspired by God.

DavidR

Posted: May 08, 2009 9:55 PM

martinb, If your "lying eyes" are lying to you about the evidence from nature, then they also lying when they read the words of Scripture. Romans 1 clearly states that the evidence of nature points to the Creator, so you need to think very carefully about this "lying eyes" argument. God made your eyes, and you are in effect calling Him a liar. Brent V, The "slippery slope" argument is an established logical fallacy, so you'll have to do better than that. The calendar day view YECs espouse is inconsistent with the nature of God as revealed throughout the rest of Scripture. Did God zap the nation of Israel into existence with a false history? No. Did He create King David before he created Abraham? No. Obviously, the YEC interpretation of Genesis 1 is wrong. Try reading some other views on this subject, not just AiG and ICR materials. You'll be surprised to find that many very conservative scholars disagree with the 24-hour day interpretation.

Phil	Posted: May 07, 2009 9:58 PM

Those who stubbornly cling to literal 24-hour day meanings for the Creation account ignore that the very same word used for “day” (Yom) in Genesis is used in other parts of the Bible for periods greater or different than 24 hours, as in “the day of the Lord” (Joel 2:31; 2 Peter 3:10 – for future prophetic time periods), or 2 Peter 3:8–“A day is as a thousand years…” (based on Psalm 90:4). Each use’s meaning is dependent upon its context. In Daniel 8:14, “evenings and mornings” refers to a period of 2,300 days. And Hebrews 4:3-5 states that the seventh creation day is on-going (thousands-of-years long). Even Genesis uses "yom" to obviously represent more than 24 hours: “…in the day (yom) that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” And how can the text refer to actual 24-hour SOLAR days, since light was not created on the fourth day, but on the FIRST day, when God said, “Let there be light.” It is clear that as one combs the Bible, the Hebrew word Yom has no one set meaning.

The allotted time for commenting has ended.

[Browse More Christianity Today]