All Comments for: Storming Young-Earth Creationism | Christianity Today

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

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 ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 114 comments.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Show All

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.

fundamentalist

Posted: May 07, 2009 12:24 PM


I'm anxious to read The Bible, Rocks and Time, but until then I suggest people see the best scientific evidence for a young earth in Dr. Walt Brown's book "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood" available online at creationscience.com.

Kerrissa

Posted: May 06, 2009 9:40 PM

Ken (March 4), I am really interested in where the numerous transitional fossils are; that’s why I asked. I once asked my college science professor “where are the transitional fossils? I want to see them and know more about them,” and the professor had no answer. I am still interested in case you can answer. Ken, it’s my hope that you will discover the message of the Bible and allow it to transform your thinking and actions. I can’t believe a true Christian would write such insulting and graceless comments to another Christian (you directed them specifically at me)... though if you are not a Christian, no one expects you to revere the Bible nor act with respect towards those with whom you disagree, but then what are you doing here making assertions as if you are a believer? The Bible can be trusted as God’s Word and is worthy of the supreme place of authority in our lives.

Johann

Posted: May 06, 2009 6:08 PM

Good news, DIY Christians: you don't have to figure it out- that's why Jesus left us with the Church, i.e One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Revelation can never conflict with science. How sad it is when, as HyperTyper wrote, "this issue is the single most pivotal one". Who cares? The earth is obviously not 6000 years old. Anyone can see that, and even Christians in Augustine's day didn't believe that. You fundys can't see the forest for the trees. The whole point of Genesis is that God created us and that it was our sin that caused a break in the divine relationship, i.e The Fall. The Bible isn't a science text book- otherwise maybe you people will expend next try to prove that the mustard seed is the smallest seed, contrary to evidence.

James Sappington

Posted: May 06, 2009 1:43 PM

The difficulty of reconciling an old-earth hypothesis with the integrity of scripture does not come so much from Genesis 1 but rather Exodus 20:11. The argument is as follows; if Scripture is truthful and accurate, and as it states that God Himself spoke these words (Exodus 20:1) directly to Moses and the congregation of Israel (Exodus 20:18-21), and God declares that He made the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th (Exodus 20:11), therefore 1. Either the earth was made in 6 literal days or 2. God said 6 days but meant something else (intentionally as in a lie or some buddhistic notion of a deeper truth that is hidden.) So we as Christians are left with a dilemma, we either hold to scripture's God as is or we determine what part of scripture we want to believe until we are left with a book binding with no pages in between. Like it or not, what we believe about origins can affirm or jeopardize our salvation. Science errs and is self-correcting, if scripture errs we are left with ????

Mike	Posted: May 06, 2009 12:08 PM

What to say? That YEC is even held by anyone is discouraging. Ours is an evidenciary faith - they SAW the risen Lord. But the evidence for a young earth is non-existant. I was lucky to read Genesis before becoming a Christian in a household that didn't discuss religion. It was an obvious allegory without even the potential to conflict with science. Funny, my dad who never picked up a bible, was convinced the first two chapters were literally true - even though they contradicted each other. Reminds me of the person who believes the world is flat because the bible talks about the four corners of the earth. Ben's right. This young earth stuff is a very efficient method for driving people from the gospel.

PW	Posted: May 06, 2009 9:15 AM

Oops - wrong link - to see a list of prominent evangelical leaders open to an OLD-earth interpretation of Genesis, go to: http://www.reasons.org/notable-christians-open-old-universe-old-earth-persp ective. YECs would have one believe that only those who don't believe (or accept) what the Genesis Scriptures actually teach are the ones that believe in an ancient universe and earth - go to the link given above to see just how wrong that is. Such a list of key Christian leaders shows that the YOUNG-earth interpretation is in serious doubt amongst those who study and interpret Scripture.

Archie

Posted: May 05, 2009 11:38 PM

There is enormous debate over the length of the "days" of creation in Genesis. Seems to me that HOW God created the universe, and HOW LONG that took, is a sideshow debate that has sincere Christians on both sides of the issue unnecessarily beating each other up. The REAL importance is that HE created it! Yet, there is a lot of dishonesty going on. Young Earthers (YECs) insist that Old Earthers (OEs) are supporting naturalism/evolutionary beliefs as to how God created. This is nonsense! OEs affirm the Genesis account, and consider evolutionary models false, yet they interpret the "days" in Genesis as being long periods of time. Theologically and Scripturally, there are good reasons to interpret Genesis "days" as long periods of time. And certainly astronomy confirms that the star light that we see is very ancient. Even YEC Henry Morris admits that, “True creation necessarily involves creation of an ‘appearance of age'..." So, why would God build such a deception into His Creation?

George

Posted: May 05, 2009 8:42 PM

Obviously our present Christians are better informed than our Lord Jesus Christ since He referred to the creation of Adam and Eve, the days of Noah, and all things continuing as they were from the days of creation. Once we cast doubt on Genesis as being accurate, we may as well throw in the towel on Scripture being relevant. Those that want to bank their salvation on men's opinions can do so, I'll take the Bible for mine. The Answers in Genesis web site will give those that desire to give an answer to their peers on the questions raised about the accuracy of Genesis.

Peter

Posted: May 05, 2009 4:03 PM


Genesis has to do with origins, specifically the origin of the people of Israel. This is what the book is about. To anguish over the first two chapters in order to develop little more than a tortured reading of the book is to miss the point -- and the boat.

PW	Posted: May 05, 2009 2:37 PM

For a comprehensive overview of Old Earther beliefs and their Scriptural support, as well as an overview of various Christian views and their credible scientific challenges to naturalism/evolution, go to: http://www.ankerberg.com/PDF-Articles/creation.pdf For a list of evangelical leaders open to an ancient earth and universe interpretation of the Bible, go to: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml Reasons to Believe (www.reasons.org) has TONS of hard science articles by astronomers, physicists, chemists, etc. who adhere to Old Earth Christian views as well as much mainstream modern science, yet its Old Earth views also argue AGAINST naturalism's various attempted arguments to explain our universe and the Big Bang without the role of a Creator or God. Reasons to Believe also strongly supports that the Bible is God's Word and that it points to Christ as Savior. You ABSOLUTELY don't have to check your brains or questions at the church door!

martinb

Posted: May 05, 2009 2:18 PM


Young Earth Creationism basically comes down to this: Who are you going to believe, the Bible or your own lying eyes?

Philip

Posted: May 05, 2009 1:57 PM

Despite popular media's lumping of all creationists into one stereotypical category (those who believe that the Heavens, Earth, and life on Earth were created by direct acts of God, sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago), it is important to note that many creationists are actually Old-Earth creationists - those who believe in an ancient earth (4.56 billion years old) and universe (about 13.73 billion years old). Old Earth creationists believe that the Big Bang was God's beginning Creation event (one reason Einstein and others struggled with its implications was that the Big Bang strongly suggests there must have been a Beginner/Creator). Also, Old-Earthers, do not believe in the evolution of man, but that God created Adam and Eve miraculously per the Bible's description. They also believe that the days of Creation in Genesis are extremely long periods of time and they provide Scriptural support for those views.

renee

Posted: May 05, 2009 1:42 PM


The Truth is that the bible tells us the earth is young and that there was a universal flood, and only Noah and his family were the only human surviviors. If you don't understand that go find another religoun. I get so sick and tired of these posers trying to get christians to by their books and their belief systems.

Gregory Peterson

Posted: May 05, 2009 4:19 AM

There is the 'Day equals Every Day' theory. The seven days in Genesis tacitly refer to the seven planetary gods that Genesis neatly destroys, without even naming them...which would have given the idols a certain power in the mind, after all. Even today...Tuesday is Tyr's day, named after a long forgotten Scandinavian god of war...the equivalent of the planetary god, Mars. Reading Genesis, one is assured that there is but one God, the God who empowered the universe into constant creation. Every day is God's day.

John Holst

Posted: May 04, 2009 4:53 AM

I'd probably appreciate the book, since I like Hugh Ross. I don't doubt a historical Adam and Eve, or flood whatever it was. But could I suggest, for anyone troubled by perplexities of science and Biblical faith: could you google "Vernon Jenkins" and click the first choice. He's an old Welsh mathematician who should get the Christian Nobel Prize in Math for his work. His website reveals amazing mathematical pattern in Genesis 1:1 especially, and in the NT. The Jews somewhat knew about it, but much is recently discovered. It's not the "Bible Code," or like Ivan Panin either. For instance, 888 is the number of Iesous/Jesus in Greek, nominative case. it's where the number 666 came from, too.

Ken	Posted: May 04, 2009 1:00 AM

Kerrissa, You show the usual ignorance on the transitional fossil issue. Why not save yourself some time and just repeat the same old idiot response that the likes of you usually give ... that when missing links are found, it just creates 2 new gaps in the record before and after the link. There are many hundreds of examples of transitional fossils for many species. There are excellent examples where all the pieces have been found at one location and are obviously from one individual. Haven't you asked yourself why people are trying so hard to keep you from understanding the real history recorded in these fossils? No doubt this comment will be deleted very soon, by the very people who want to keep you from thinking freely for yourself ... and you will go on supporting their misguided power structure.

The Thomas

Posted: May 03, 2009 11:06 PM

From the article: "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." This may be true, but it is irrelevant. Showing that one belief is completely unfounded does not require these authors to explain all the problems with the bible. They don't need to come up with their own hypothesis of how to interpret the bible to show that one interpretation is wrong on its face. As a matter of faith, these YEC fellows can think whatever they want, but when consideriing science and evidence their belief is hopelessly unsupported. An honest YEC will say that all the evidence is against their ideas, but their ideas are a matter of unconditional faith. I've known a Astronomy professor who said just that. All the evidence clearly points to an old universe but my religious views aren't based on evidence.

W	Posted: May 03, 2009 8:00 PM

Evidence for the biblical creation requested. Last time I checked every recorded birth of any animal was they same kind as its parents dog cats or human. Thats what the bible states will happen oh yes and the fossil record also shows the same. As for the evolution therory there should be some changes occuring occasionally that be 1 - 0 to the YEC then. Geolocgically speaking well lets take mount st helens erroupted a in the 1980's and was well recorded by both video and photo evidence. it has sinced formed a new cap which has been dated by radiometric dating to be any thing from thousands - millions of years old and yet we have seen and documented with our own eyes it is less than 30 years old. That shows there are issue with the assumtion made in the dating methods 2 -0 these are two of the main arguments agiast YEC yet it has documented evidence to support its claims as yet no eye wittness accounts of any changes to kinds and billions of acoounts of them staying the same

Thomas Lee Elifritz

Posted: May 03, 2009 10:31 AM


Have you considered yet the possibility that you may be a retard? I suggest that you consider also the benefits that a modern day elementary school science education might afford you. They'll even provide you with oversized desks so you don't have to sit on the floor. That you already know how to read and write will give you a great advantage in first grade science classes.

Samuel Park

Posted: May 02, 2009 11:43 PM

First, the purpose of the book is not to disprove the comprehensive framework of YEC system, but to disprove that Earth is young in light of scientific evidence. It might be a short coming for the authors of the book not to present their concrete alternative. However, it would be academincally and religiously dishonest to push for an alternative they do not wholey subscribe to. Second, just because a certain belief is a complex and comprehensive system, it does not mean it is true. If not, any religions, let say Buddhism or Greek mythology, would be considered true. Third, Genesis is historical and scientific, but it is not a history book or science book. Moses wrote Genesis with a theological thrust that Yahweh who saved the Israel from Egypt is none other than Elohim who created the universe and El Shaddi of their forefathers.

Rationalist

Posted: May 02, 2009 7:46 PM


Of course "Genesis means what it says". Unfortunately, it has nothing whatsoever to do with what 100% of the physical evidence available to us today clearly indicates: a great age for the Earth. Reading and exploring the works of those who deny reality won't change the fact that Genesis describes a world that simply does not exist, at least not beneath our feet.

Marcia Yiapan

Posted: May 02, 2009 6:47 PM

I'm 1/2 through the excellent "Beyond Creation Science", which argues that the way one reads the end of the Bible (Rev.) influences how he sees the beginning. Thus, they argue that most evangelicals today are dispensationalists who look forward to a "tribulation" and "rapture", etc. , so they also see Genesis 1 as 6 days with a global flood later, which they attribute to the 19th c. 7th Day Adventist writer Ellen G. White. I'm still not convinced that the two views are joined at the hip, but I'm sure they're right about the Lord's olivet discourse. They show how it predicted-- not the end of the world-- but the Romans' destruction of Jerusalem and the Jews' temple with its daily blood sacrifices, in AD 70. After all, Jesus said it'd happen in that generation, and he was not mistaken. So that was actually his 2nd coming! It fits right into OT prophetic language patterns:"coming in the clouds", etc. He was warning his followers so they could flee. The old order was over. But creation---?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment