Young-Earth Creationism: A Position Paper

Timothy Gordon

September 17, 2013

ii

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

What are the Major Tenets of Young-Earth Creationism? ..........................................1

History and Background of Young-Earth Creationism ...............................................2

CRITIQUE OF THE YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISM POSITION ..............................4

Strengths of the Young-Earth Position ........................................................................4

Weaknesses of the Young-Earth Position ...................................................................5

CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................7

Evaluation ....................................................................................................................7

Summary ......................................................................................................................7

APPENDIX A 30 YEARS OF GALLUP POLLING ON HUMAN ORIGINS .................8

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................9

1

INTRODUCTION

This is a position paper on young-earth creationism (YEC) as a valid model of biblical creation.

Time and space constraints do not allow this to be a comprehensive view of the model. The major tenets

and historical background of YEC are provided as a context for the main section which discusses some of

the major strengths and weaknesses of the model. Finally, the conclusion is the author’s evaluation of the

YEC model.

What are the Major Tenets of Young-Earth Creationism?

Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds list the main distinguishing features of young-earth

creation (YEC) or recent creation as follows:1

1. An open philosophy of science.

2. All basic types of organisms were directly created by God during the creation week of Genesis 1-2.

3. The curse of Genesis 3:14-19 profoundly affected every aspect of the natural economy.

4. The flood of Noah was a historical event, global in extent and effect.

In their principles of creationism the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) lists the following

three key items in their biblical creation model:2

1. Creation completed by supernatural processes in six days.

2. Creation in the bondage of decay because of sin and the curse.

3. Earth history dominated by the great flood of Noah's day.

The YEC organization Answers in Genesis lists the following positions under their statement of

faith.3

The Genesis account of origins is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore

provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life,

mankind, the earth, and the universe.

All life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living

descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today,

reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Limited biological changes (including

mutations) have occurred naturally within each kind since creation.

1 J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds, Counterpoints: Bible and Theology, ePub Edition April 2010,

Three Views on Creation and Evolution, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1999), Kindle locations 543-546. 2 Henry Morris, “The Principles Of Creationism,” Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/

article/3753/(accessed May 26, 2013). 3 “The AiG Statement of Faith,” Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

(accessed May 26, 2013).

2

The Noachian Flood in Genesis was an actual historic geologic event, worldwide (global) in its extent

and effect and was the origin of most of the fossiliferous sediment.

Adam and Eve were special creations.

Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed began at the fall of man.

Scripture teaches a recent origin for creation and man, about 4000 years before Christ.

The creation days of Genesis are six (6) consecutive twenty-four (24) hour days.

The gap theory has no basis in Scripture.

The dichotomy of secular and religious (biblical) truth is rejected.

No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of

primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who

do not possess all information.

History and Background of Young-Earth Creationism

There are two early influences relevant to the discussion on YEC. Augustine was possibly the

most influential of the patristic writers on the issue of biblical creation models. One was the work of

Augustine in four points that became fundamental to Christian theology and were key to science-religion

interaction. The first is the doctrine of the unity of truth. The second is the doctrine of the Two Books—

the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature. Third is the requirement that both books require careful

interpretation. Specifically, his Literal Interpretation of Genesis did not mean what it does today. In fact,

Augustine denied a six-day or even a six-period creation. The crucial point of his thought is the doctrine

of accommodation; that biblical expressions were accommodated to the understanding of their original

audience. Fourth, in terms of the pursuit of religion versus the pursuit of science, religion has primacy but

scientific knowledge is the “handmaiden” that assists true religion.4

The second early influence from the 19th century was the development of the so-called warfare or

conflict thesis which maintained that religion and science were adversaries and that religion had stymied

scientific advancement. There are no serious historians or philosophers of science who maintain the

warfare thesis. Its origins lie specifically in the work of two men: John William Draper (1811-1882) and

Andrew Dickson White. Draper wrote A History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874). It is

essentially a long, vitriolic, anti-Catholic diatribe. White was a University of Michigan historian and the

first president of Cornell University. He wrote The Warfare of Science (1876) and A History of the

Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). Both books used fallacious arguments and

were poorly researched.5

Historian of science, Ronald Numbers, has possibly done the most comprehensive research on the

history of creationism.6 Within twenty years of the publishing of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859,

there were only two working naturalists who were creationists. Numbers noted that the majority of late

19th century Americans held to a traditional reading of Genesis. The results of a recent USA

Today/Gallup poll7 revealed that 46% of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created

4 Lawrence M. Principe, The Great Courses: Teaching that Engages the Mind, Science and Religion,

(Chantilly, Virginia: The Teaching Company, 2006), 34-35. 5 Ibid., 18-21. 6 Ronald L. Numbers, “Creationism since 1859,” in Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction, ed.

Gary B. Ferngren (Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 277-288. 7 Frank Newport, “In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins,” Gallup, Inc., http://

www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx (accessed May 27, 2013). Poll results were

based on telephone interviews conducted May 10-13, 2012, with a random sample of 1,012 adults, aged 18 and

older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

3

humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. Another 32% believe that humans

evolved, but with God's guidance while 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process.

The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years

ago, when Gallup first asked the question (note Appendix A).

The popularity of modern YEC has its origins among three well-known personalities in the late

19- and early 20th centuries. First, the most consistent creationist voice at the beginning of the 20th

century belonged to the new Seventh-day Adventist movement, which looked to the mid-nineteenth

century prophetic writings of prophetess Ellen White (1827-1915) for guidance. As one of William

Miller’s followers, White’s influence was enormous in certain circles, specifically end-times prophecy.

White insisted that Noah’s flood was global and had produced all of the geological layers. Her claims

were rejected by most conservative geologists as being impossible, based on the evidence. Karl Giberson

argues that the main positions of YEC can be traced back to one of White’s visions.8

White’s writings were perpetuated outside of Adventist circles by the second major figure in the

history of YEC, George McCready Price (1870-1963). Price was a gifted writer and self-taught geologist

with little formal education. Price’s contribution was the 723-page The New Geology. Price defended a

recent six-day creation, relying on Noah’s flood to provide an alternative explanation for the geological

data of an old earth that was the pervading view at the time. Price’s work became the basis for the so-

called “Flood Geology” view within YEC. By the mid-1920s Science magazine described Price as the

principle scientific authority of the Fundamentalists.9 This movement took its name from a book series

called The Fundamentals which was published between 1910 and 1915 by the Bible Institute of Los

Angeles (now Biola) which defined the fundamentals of Christianity and became the foundation of

modern fundamentalism.10

Price’s work was promoted to national prominence by a third major figure in early YEC, William

Jennings Bryan (1860-1925). It was Bryan who prosecuted John Scopes at the famous trial in Dayton,

Tennessee, in 1925. Bryan was the most important antievolutionist of the first half of the 20th century but

he, surprisingly, was not a YEC. The main leadership of the antievolution movement came from Bryan

and a premillennial organization called World’s Christian Fundamentals Association, founded in 1919 by

William Bell Riley.11

The creationist movement was revived in 1961 with the publishing of The Genesis Flood by

Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb. It was basically a new appeal to the flood geology of Price and

was motivated, in large part, by implementation of Darwinian evolution into the biology textbooks within

public schools. It led to the establishment in 1963 of the Creation Research Society (CRS) and the

Institute of Creation Research (ICR) in 1972. The Genesis Flood launched the modern creationist

movement and convinced millions of Christians to accept White’s vision of earth history.12 The

Geoscience Research Institute (GRI) was established in 1958 by the Seventh-Day Adventist Church and

is affiliated with Loma Linda University in Loma Linda, California, and Andrews University in Berrien

Springs, Michigan. Answers in Genesis (AiG), founded by former ICR employee Ken Ham in 1994, is

another prominent YEC organization that has played a large role in perpetuating the movement up to the

present time.

8 Karl Giberson, “Adventist Origins of Young Earth Creationism” (unpublished manuscript, August 4,

2009): 1-2, PDF, http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Giberson-scholarly-essay-1-1.pdf (accessed May 26, 2013). 9 Numbers, 283. 10 Gilberson, 1. 11 Gilberson, 2 and Numbers, 280-81. 12 Numbers, 284-288.

4

CRITIQUE OF THE YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISM POSITION

Strengths of the Young-Earth Position

To their credit, AiG lists their priorities as noted below:13

1. The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation

of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge.

2. The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the gospel of Jesus Christ.

In their principles of creationism, the ICR states that creationists should not advocate that biblical

creationism be taught in public schools, both because of judicial restrictions against religion in such

schools and also (more importantly) because teachers who do not believe the Bible should not be asked to

teach the Bible.14

AiG also has a page on their website that discusses creation arguments that Christians should not

use.15 This candor on their part is refreshing because they admit there are some arguments that could

support creation that should not be used because they are wrong, not rational, inaccurate, or invalid. They

even admit that their use of a scientific model as part of an argument is not part of God’s Word and, thus,

may be fallible.

Some of the arguments that AiG lists that Christians should not use include the following in three

categories below.16 Again, this is commendable because some of these arguments have recently or

historically been used in the past to support YEC.

Arguments that should never be used.

1. Moon dust thickness proves a young moon.

2. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall.

3. There was a NASA computer that found a missing day and 40 minutes, proving Joshua’s “long day”

(Joshua 10) and Hezekiah’s sundial movement (2 Kings 20).

4. There are no beneficial mutations.

5. Darwin recanted on his deathbed.

6. Woolly mammoths were flash frozen during the Flood catastrophe.

7. If we evolved from apes, apes shouldn’t exist today.

8. No new species have been produced.

9. Ron Wyatt has found much archeological proof of the Bible.

Arguments that should be avoided (because further research is still needed, new research has invalidated

aspects of it, or biblical implications may discount it).

1. Evolution is just a theory.

13 “The AiG Statement of Faith,” n.p. 14 Morris, n.p. 15 Tommy Mitchell, “Arguments Christians Shouldn't Use,” Answers in Genesis, http://

www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/07/27/introduction-arguments-christians-shouldnt-use (accessed May 26,

2013). 16 "Arguments Creationists Should Avoid," Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-

answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use (accessed May 26, 2013).

5

2. Microevolution is true but not macroevolution.

3. There was a water vapor canopy surrounding earth before the Flood.

4. Mitochondrial Eve is only 6000 years old.

5. The Gospel is in the stars.

6. The Japanese trawler Zuiyo Maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand.

7. The earth’s axis was vertical before the Flood.

8. Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.

9. Stars are closer than we are led to believe.

10. There was no rain before the Flood.

11. The speed of light has decreased over time.

12. There are no transitional forms.

Common misconceptions/misunderstandings.

1. Earth’s division in the days of Peleg (Genesis 10:25) refers to catastrophic splitting of the continents.

2. The Septuagint records the correct Genesis chronology.

3. The phrase “science falsely so called” in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution.

4. Man could only live to 120 years as per Genesis 6:3.

5. The Intelligent Design Movement is a Christian movement.

6. Women have one more rib than men.

7. Archaeopteryx is a fraud.

8. The Geneva Bible Society used Voltaire’s house to produce Bibles.

Weaknesses of the Young-Earth Position

Even with the commendations listed above, YEC has some major issues and challenges. Due to

space limits, here are five objections in no particular order of significance or priority.

1. Many YEC “scholars” are not specialists in their field. They may have ministry, theological, or some

science training but many of them research and write out of their field. This is a basic credibility

issue.

2. Much of the scientific research YEC writers use or cite is from their own organization or another

YEC organization. Again, this is a credibility issue because most of these publications are not peer-

reviewed and the theories advocated are not independently tested for falsification. It is akin to

“preaching to the choir.”

3. One of the major positions of YEC is that the dating of the creation of the cosmos and all of life can

be determined from piecing together and adding up the ages of the people that are listed in certain

biblical genealogies. This is a false premise because it assumes that the Bible contains a complete

listing of all genealogies from Adam to Christ.17 It has been proven by historians that this is not a

reliable dating method because the Hebrews were not like Americans in our passion to include every

family in our genealogical history in chronological order. The Hebrews included certain people for

specific reasons and if someone was an embarrassment to the family, he might not be included. This

flawed dating methodology was developed by Anglican Archibishop James Ussher in 1650 and has

been used by YEC up to the present day. Ussher calculated the beginning of creation to be October

23, 4004 BC. Consequently, every scientific theory of YEC must fit within this narrow dating

framework of Ussher, even if his presuppositions are wrong.

17 John Millam, “The Genesis Geneaologies: Are They Complete?” God and Science,

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_genealogies.htm (accessed May 25, 2013).

6

4. Another fundamental position of YEC is the presupposition that Genesis 1 is a scientifically accurate

narrative of creation. Based on Ussher’s dating calculations, a literal reading of the Genesis text, and

the assumption that the six creation days are literal 24-hour days, YEC conclude that all time, matter,

and energy were created during the this creation week. The literal six-day creation may be a valid

reading of the text but Genesis 1 is also undated and untimed in that it does not mention when the

beginning began. So from a purely exegetical standpoint, one cannot explicitly determine a 4004 BC

beginning date from the Genesis text. YEC generally reject any gap theory of a long period of time

between Genesis 1:1-2 and the first creation day.

5. The geological theories (flood geology) of YEC fall within the interpretive framework of a global

Noachian flood. This means all rock layers including fossil remains and the erosion of canyons like

the Grand Canyon occurred during Noah’s time. Even if Noah’s flood was global in its scope, YEC

theories and conclusions are not accepted by mainstream geologists because they view it to be

impossible for all evidence of uniformitarian and catastrophic geological history to be traced to a

single global flood. Christian geologists John Clayton and Nils Jansma discuss the many problems

associated with this view including the assumption that every animal phyla including humans would

be deposited together through natural processes before the flood occurred.18

18 John Clayton and Nils Jansma, The Source: Creation—Eternal Design or Infinite Accident? (West

Monroe, Louisiana: Howard Publishing Co., Inc., 2001), 233-237. Discussed in Appendix 7 titled “Discussion of

Flood Geology.”

7

CONCLUSION

Evaluation

Young Earth creationists have a high view of Scripture and believe in the important orthodox

teachings of the Christian faith. As they have mentioned in their own writings, this takes precedence over

the validity of their scientific model of creation. The following points are made in the evaluation of this

author.

The age of the universe and the Earth is a frequently encountered objection to faith in Christ by

unbelievers and skeptics. This controversy has become an unfortunate and unnecessary issue and it

complicates evangelistic efforts with what looks like red herring arguments. It is pointless and even

damaging to make an issue out of something that is neither critical to the case against atheistic

evolutionism nor critical to one's faith in Christ and confidence in the inerrancy of the Bible. The Bible is

very specific about who created the universe and somewhat specific about how and why he created but it

is less specific about when. Certainly, the question of who is the Creator is crucial to one's salvation, and

the how and why questions are important. However, the when question hardly matters.

Summary

In the introduction this paper looked at the major tenets and historical background of young-earth

creationism (YEC) as a biblical creation model. Some major strengths and weaknesses were discussed.

Finally, a brief evaluation of the YEC model was provided.

8

APPENDIX A

30 YEARS OF GALLUP POLLING ON HUMAN ORIGINS19

19 Newport, n.p.

9

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“Arguments Creationists Should Avoid.” Answers in Genesis. http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-

answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use (accessed May 26, 2013).

“The AiG Statement of Faith.” Answers in Genesis. http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

(accessed May 26, 2013).

Clayton, John and Nils Jansma. The Source: Creation—Eternal Design or Infinite Accident? West

Monroe, Louisiana: Howard Publishing Co., Inc., 2001.

Giberson, Karl. “Adventist Origins of Young Earth Creationism.” Unpublished manuscript, August 4,

2009. PDF. http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Giberson-scholarly-essay-1-1.pdf (accessed May

26, 2013).

Millam, John. “The Genesis Geneaologies: Are They Complete?” God and Science.

http://ww.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_genealogies.htm (accessed May 25, 2013).

Mitchell, Tommy. “Arguments Christians Shouldn't Use.” Answers in Genesis. http://

www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/07/27/introduction-arguments-christians-shouldnt-use

(accessed May 26, 2013).

Moreland, J. P. and John Mark Reynolds. Counterpoints: Bible and Theology. EPub Edition April 2010.

Three Views on Creation and Evolution. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1999.

Morris, Henry. “The Principles of Creationism.” Institute for Creation Research. http://www.icr.org/

article/3753/(accessed May 26, 2013).

Newport, Frank. “In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins.” Gallup, Inc. http://

www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx (accessed May 27,

2013).

Numbers, Ronald L. “Creationism since 1859,” in Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction. Ed.

Gary B. Ferngren. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.

Principe, Lawrence M. The Great Courses: Teaching that Engages the Mind. Science and Religion.

Chantilly, Virginia: The Teaching Company, 2006.