TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
1. OLD
EARTH CREATIONISM
1.1 GAP CREATIONISM
1.2 PROGRESSIVE CREATIONISM
1.3
DAY-AGE CREATIONISM
1.4 THEISTIC EVOLUTION
2. YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM
2.1 SEDIMENT ON THE SEA LOOR
2.2 SOFT TISSUE IN FOSSILS
2.3 SWIFTLY DECAYING MAGNETIC FIELD
2.4 SHORT-LIVED
COMETS
2.5
CARBON-14 DATING
2.6 DNA: BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL DECAYS TOO
FAST
3. NEO-CREATIONISM
4. THE POINT OF CONTROVERSY
5. COMMON GROUND
5.1 GOD’S DIRECT SUPERNATURAL CREATION
5.2 THE HISTORICITY OF THE GENESIS
ACCOUNT
5.3 ANTAGONISM TO NATURALISM
5.4 ANTAGONISM TO MACROEVOLUTION
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INTRODUCTION
One
of the most vital doctrines held by Christians is God’s creation of the world
and all living creatures. Yet among evangelicals, a constant debate exists concerning
the age of the earth and when God created the universe and life. Indeed, the
“young-earth” vs. “old-earth” dispute is one of the most separating and conflict-ridden
concerns within the Christianity.
Since
the time of Charles Darwin (1809-1882), debate has raged within Christianity on
whether or not total evolution is compatible with the historic biblical and
theological teaching on origins.
Two
basic camps have emerged: theistic evolution and creationism. Within the second
faction (creationists), there are two major groups: old-earth creationists and
young-earth creationists. (The former are often called progressive
creationists, and the latter, fiat creationists.) Currently, in America, the
young-earth creationists are led by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR),
based on the work of Henry Morris. Progressive (old-earth) creationism is
championed by Hugh Ross and his “Reasons to Believe” organization; another
proponent of this view is Robert Newman at Biblical Seminary in Hatfield,
Pennsylvania.
Creationism
is a belief that states that one or more god(s) created reality (the universe
and/or its contents) through magic, rather than that the universe arose through
purely natural procedures. "Creationism" is frequently used as a
synonym of Young Earth creationism, but the two are not alike.
Due
to the existence of several and varied religious beliefs and due to varied
attempts to make creationism into something "scientific", creationism
takes many faces. Old Earth creationists believe in deep time for the universe
but may reject evolution, common descent, or deep time specifically for the
Earth. Young Earth creationists hold the universe is less than 10,000 years
old, they also hold onto the historical truth of the Bible, including a Fall
and a Global flood, and reject evolution (to varying degrees).
Young
Earth Creationists’ think that Archbishop Ussher's sixteenth-century
calculation of about 6000 years is a good estimate; that there are six days of
creation, there is debate on the meaning of ‘day’ in this context, with some
insisting on a literal twenty-four hours, and others more flexible; that there
was a miraculous creation of all life including Homo sapiens with scope for
debate about whether Adam and Eve came together or if Eve came afterwards to
keep Adam company; that there was a world-wide flood sometime after the initial
creation, through which only a limited number of humans and animals survived;
and other events such as the Tower of Babel and the turning of Lot's wife into
a pillar of salt.
Creationists
(in this narrow sense) have variously been known as Fundamentalists or biblical
literalists, and sometimes especially when they are pushing the scientific
grounds for their beliefs, as Scientific Creationists.
This
paper is an endeavor to elucidate both young and old earth creation theories with
a brief analysis of each in proportion to bible and contemporary opinions.
1. OLD
EARTH CREATIONISM
Old
Earth Creationism is a canopy term used to describe biblical creationists who
deny that the universe was created within the last 6,000 to 10,000 years over
the course of six consecutive 24-hour days. Rather, Old Earth Creationists
believe that God created the universe and its occupants (including a literal
Adam and Eve) over a much longer period of time than is allowed for by Young
Earth Creationists.[1]
The list of notable Christian leaders who are at least open to an Old Earth
interpretation is a long one and that list continues to grow. [2] Old
Earth Creationists generally agree with the mainstream scientific assessments
of the age of the universe, humanity, and Earth itself while at the same time rebuffing
the claims of modern evolutionary theorists with respect to biological
evolution.
Christian
scholars who hold this theory are;
Major
old earth creationists are Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, John Gresham Machen,
William G.T. Shedd, Benjamin B. Warfield, Gleason Archer and R. Laird Harris,
James Montgomery Boice, Francis Schaeffer, R.A. Torrey, Edward J. Young, John
Ankerberg, Bill Bright, C. John Collins, Chuck Colson, Paul Copan, William Lane
Craig, Norman Geisler, Wayne Grudem, Hank Hannegraff, Jack Hayford, Walter
Kaiser, Phillip E. Johnson, Greg Koukl, J.P. Moreland, J.I. Packer, Nancy
Pearcey, Vern Poythress, Earl Radmacher, Lee Strobel, Dallas Willard and so on.
Some
more evidences that old earth creationists presents to prove their argument;
·
Thermoluminescence dating
·
Dendrochronology
·
Oxidizable carbon ratio dating
·
Mitochondrial Eve
·
Lack of DNA in fossils
·
Ice layering
·
Rock varnish
·
Permafrost
·
Weathering rinds
·
Weathering rinds
·
Y-chromosomal Adam
·
Fission track dating
·
[edit]Relativistic
jets
·
Space weathering
·
Petrified wood
·
Naica Megacrystals
·
Cosmogenic nuclide dating
·
Stalactites
·
Amino acid racemization
·
Distant starlight
·
Globular clusters
·
Rotation of the Earth
A
good number of the types of creationism exist, including gap creationism,
progressive creationism, and evolutionary creationism. Old Earth creationism is
normally more compatible with mainstream scientific thought on the issues of
physics, chemistry, geology and the age of the Earth, in comparison to young
Earth creationism.
1.1 GAP CREATIONISM
Many
conservative people who read of the Bible, are aware with the outcomes of
geological research, found in it a way in which the Bible and science could be
brought into synchronization. They recognized the long periods of progress necessitated
by geology, but interleaved them between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis account. In
addition, most of them understood the six “days” to be literal days of
twenty-four hours. Gap creationism states that life was instantaneously created
on a pre-existing old Earth. One variant rests on a rendering of Genesis 1:1-2
as, “In the beginning ... the earth was formless and void."
This
is taken by Gap creationists to imply that the earth already existed, but had
passed into decay during an earlier age of existence, and was now being
"shaped anew". This view is more consistent with mainstream science
with respect to the age of the Earth, but still often resembles Young Earth
creationism in many respects (often seeing the "days" of Genesis 1 as
24-hour days).[3]
This view was popularized in 1909 by the Scofield Reference Bible.
This
undertakes that a massive period of time passed between the first two verses of
Genesis.[4]
Most variations of this theory interpret Genesis 1:1 as the first creation,
which included the creation of the heavens, the earth, plants and animals, and
even a race of humans preceding Adam. Perhaps billions of years then elapsed,
during which time Satan and his angels fell and corrupted the inhabitants of
the earth. God then judged and destroyed the earth and all its inhabitants.
Thus, the earth became "formless and void" (Genesis 1:2) and remained
that way for eons. The second creation, according to the gap theory, began in
Genesis 1:3 with the first day of the familiar six days of creation of the
(re)creation week.
There
are three weaknesses in this theory that we will consider below;
·
The first deficiency relates to an
unwarranted geological concession that was an underlying motivation for the
formation of the gap theory. In permitting an indefinite scope to the
conjectures of geology, the gap theory sets its underpinnings in an old earth
model along with its demands for world-wide catastrophes before the creation of
Adam. According to the gap theory, animals and the predecessors of mankind were
living and dying for millions of years before the creation and fall of Adam
·
The second deficiency of the gap theory
is that it undermines the Scriptural import of Noah’s Flood. By placing the
fossil-laden sedimentary rocks in the so-called flood of Lucifer between
Genesis 1:1Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) and 1:2Open in Logos
Bible Software (if available), gap theorists have read into the Scripture
greater import to an event about which Scripture is completely silent.
·
The gap theory’s third deficiency
compromises the biblical narrative of Genesis 3 and how it impacts on the fall
of Adam, and the Edenic Curse. In dealing with the fall of Adam, not only do we
need to grasp the actual fall but its effect on creation, the Edenic Curse. To
grasp the significance of the fall of Adam and Edenic Curse in Genesis 3, we
must understand the dominion mandate, represented in the first two chapters of
Genesis. Having been made in the image of God, Adam was created by God, in
Genesis 1:26Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 28Open in Logos Bible
Software (if available), to represent him as vice-regent over creation.[5]
However,
many of those who hold to the gap theory do so in order to settle old-earth,
evolutionary theories with the book of Genesis. But it seems to be a strained resolution.
The simple reading of Genesis 1 does not at all show a length of time between
the first two verses. Genesis 1:1 tells us that God created the heavens and the
earth. Genesis 1:2 informs us that, when He first created the earth, it was
formless, empty, and dark; it was incomplete and unoccupied. The rest of
Genesis 1 relates how God completed the formless, empty, and dark earth by
filling it with life, beauty, and goodness.
1.2 PROGRESSIVE CREATIONISM
Progressive
creationism is the religious belief that God permits certain natural process
(such as gene mutation and natural selection) to affect the development of
life, but has also directly intervened at crucial moments in life’s history to
guide those processes or, in some views, create new species altogether (often
to replenish the earth).[6]
The error of progressive creationism rests on the supposition that the biblical
account of creation in Genesis chapters 1-2 cannot be understood literally.
According to progressive creationism, the "days" in Genesis chapter 1
are not literal 24-hour days, but actually long periods of time. Another error
of progressive creationism is that it posits that death existed prior to the
Fall, which undermines the Bible's clear teaching that death is a result of sin
(see Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22).[7]
They
generally agree on the following:
·
The "Big Bang" was God's way
of creating stars and galaxies through billions of years of natural processes.
·
The earth and universe are billions of
years old, not only thousands of years old.
·
The days of creation were overlapping
periods of millions and billions of years.
·
Death and bloodshed have existed from
the very beginning of creation and were not the result of Adam's sin. Man was
created after the vast majority of earth's history of life and death had
already taken place.
·
The flood of Noah was local, not global,
and it had little effect on the earth's geology, which shows billions of years
of history.
Undoubtedly,
progressive creationism is an effort by some Christians to complement the teachings
of modern science with the Bible. However, the theory essentially ends up
supporting the beliefs of evolutionary science and causes a greater concerns
among believers about whether God's Word can be trusted.
1.3 DAY AGE CREATIONISM
Day-age
creationism states that the ‘six days’ of the Book of Genesis are not ordinary
24-hour days, but rather much longer periods (for instance, each day could be
millions, or billions of years of human time). Physicist Gerald Schroeder is
one such advocate of this position. This theory often states that the Hebrew
word yom, in the context of Genesis 1, can be correctly interpreted as age.
Some supporters claim we are still living in the seventh age (seventh day).[8] Strictly
speaking, day-age creationism is not so much a creationist theory as a
hermeneutic option which may be united with theories such as progressive
creationism.
Consider
the use of the word Yom in Genesis.
In
the Genesis creation account and in Psalm 90 (by Moses), it is used four
different ways;
·
12-Hour Period. In Genesis 1:5, it says "God called the
light day, and the darkness he called night. And there was evening, and there
was morning, the first day." This
use of Yom is for a 12-hour period.
·
24-Hour Period. In Genesis 1:14, it says "And God said,
“Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the
night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years”. This
use of Yom is for a 24-hour day.
·
The Entire Creative Week. In Genesis
2:4, it says "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they
were created. In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the
heavens." Here, Yom refers
to the entire six-day creative week.
·
A Long Period of Time. Psalm 90:4 says,
"For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night." In this instance, Moses says Yom is
like a thousand years. In each case, it is the same author, Moses, who uses the
word Yom to represent a different period of time. Thus, young earth
creationist claims that Yom is only a 24-hour day are completely
unfounded by Scripture.
In
other words this is an endeavor to harmonize the Bible with current scientific
beliefs such as stellar evolution, and the fossil record. It assumes the days
of the creation were actually broad lengths of time, and proposes that God
separately created the various kinds of animals and later man, but over a long
period of time. It also accepts the evolutionary time scale (simple to complex
over millions of years) but has more input from God.[9]
Hugh Ross and the Reasons to Believe ministry teaches progressive
creation.
Christ
Himself spoke of the importance of believing in Moses’ writings (John 5:45–47).
And, in Exodus 20:11, this is what Moses had to say: “For in six days the Lord
made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested
the seventh day.”[10]
1.4 THEISTIC EVOLUTION
Evolutionary
creationism, or theistic evolution, asserts that the personal God of the Bible
created the universe and life through evolutionary methods. It was first put
together by Teilhard de Chardin, which struck the Catholic world like a whirlwind
around the time of the Second Vatican Council and continues to the present day
in the work of such Catholic evolutionists as John Haught and Kenneth R.
Miller. Usually the evolution in theistic evolution means Whole Evolution,
astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems) and geological
evolution plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological
evolution but it can refer only to biological evolution. French philosopher and
Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin decidedly went further than any of the
aforementioned religious writers in synthesizing evolution and Christian
theology.[11]
Theistic evolutionists could thus belong to any of the three main monotheistic
faiths, or to any other theistic faith.
Counter
arguments;
·
General theistic evolution and Occam's
Razor
One
general counter-argument is that if one accepts that natural selection can explicate
everything that is perceived on its own, without God violating natural law, and
if divine intervention is indistinguishable from naturalistic grounds, then God
becomes a pointless hypothesis that should be blotted out as per Occam's Razor.
·
God of gaps: Arguments against guided
evolution
One
variant of theistic evolution, guided evolution, makes stronger claims that
prompt a wider variety of counter-arguments. For example, guided evolution
posits that God's guidance was essential for currently existing species to
evolve. This infers the existence of gaps where a natural methodology would be unable
to explain observations, in other words, this is a classic appeal to the God of
the gaps.
·
The Doctrine of God’s Incarnation is
Undermined
The
incarnation of God through His Son Jesus Christ is one of the basic teachings
of the Bible. The Bible states that ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us’
(John 1:14), ‘Christ Jesus was made in the likeness of men’ (Philippians
2:5–7).
The
idea of evolution undermines the foundation of our salvation. The doctrines of
creation and evolution are so different that reconciliation is totally
impossible.[12]
The conclusion is unavoidable that there is no support for theistic evolution
in the Bible.
2.
YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM
Young
Earth creationists believe that God created the Earth within the last ten
thousand years, literally as described in the Genesis creation narrative,
within the estimated time-frame of biblical genealogies (detailed for example
in the Ussher chronology). Most young Earth creationists believe that the
Universe has a similar age as the Earth. A few assign a much older age to the
Universe than to Earth. Creationist cosmologies give the Universe an age
consistent with the Ussher chronology and other young Earth time frames. Other
young Earth creationists believe that the Earth and the Universe were created
with the appearance of age, so that the world appears to be much older than it
is, and that this appearance is what gives the geological findings and other
methods of dating the Earth and the Universe their much longer timelines.[13]
Below
are some of the evidences in support of this argument;
2.1 SEDIMENT ON THE SEA FLOOR
If
sediments have been amassing on the seafloor for three billion years, the
seafloor should be choked with sediments many miles deep. Every year water and
wind erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock debris from the continents
and deposit them on the seafloor. Most of this material amasses as loose
sediments near the continents. Yet the normal thickness of all these sediments
globally over the whole seafloor is not even 1,300 feet. Some sediments seem to
be removed as tectonic plates slide slowly (an inch or two per year) beneath continents.
An estimated 1 billion tons of sediments are removed this way each year. The
net gain is thus 19 billion tons per year. At this rate, 1,300 feet of sediment
would accumulate in less than 12 million years, not billions of years[14]
This
evidence makes sense within the context of the Genesis Flood cataclysm, not the
concept of slow geologic evolution. In the latter phases of the year-long
global Flood, water quickly exhausted off the emerging land, dumping its
sediment-chocked loads offshore. Thus most seafloor sediments amassed speedily
about 4,300 years ago.
2.2 SOFT TISSUE IN FOSSILS
A
current finding by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, however, has given reason for all but
committed evolutionists to question this postulation. Bone parts from the
fossilized thigh bone (femur) of a Tyrannosaurus Rex found in the Hell
Creek formation of Montana were studied under the microscope by Schweitzer. To
her wonder, the bone displayed what seemed to be blood vessels of the type seen
in bone and marrow, and these contained what seemed to be red blood cells with
nuclei, typical of reptiles and birds (but not mammals). The vessels even seemed
to be lined with specialized endothelial cells found in all blood vessels.[15]
Exceptionally,
the bone marrow contained what seemed to be supple tissue. Formerly, some
skeptical scientists recommended that bacterial biofilms (dead bacteria
aggregated in a slime) formed what only appear to be blood vessels and bone
cells. Lately Schweitzer and associates found biochemical indication for undamaged
fragments of the protein collagen, which is the building block of connective
tissue. This is significant because collagen is extremely unique protein not
made by bacteria.[16]
Some
evolutionists have strongly criticized Schweitzer’s conclusions because they
are understandably reluctant to concede the existence of blood vessels, cells
with nuclei, tissue elasticity, and intact protein fragments in a dinosaur bone
dated at 68 million years old. Other evolutionists, who find Schweitzer’s
evidence too compelling to ignore, simply conclude that there is some
previously unrecognized form of fossilization that preserves cells and protein
fragments over tens of millions of years.[17]
Needless to say, no evolutionist has publically considered the possibility that
dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old.
2.3 SWIFTLY DECAYING MAGNETIC FIELD
Since
expedients for measuring the Earth's magnetic field were designed a few hundred
years ago, measurements have shown that the Earth's magnetic field has been
steadily lessening over those few hundred years. By extrapolating the decay
backwards in time, it is then claimed that an age greater than 10,000 years is
impossible. Numerous measurements confirm this deterioration. Since measuring
began in 1845, the total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field has been
decaying at a rate of 5% per century. Archaeological measurements show that the
field was 40% stronger in AD 1000.2 Recent records of the International
Geomagnetic Reference Field, the most accurate ever taken, show a net energy
loss of 1.4% in just three decades (1970–2000).3 This means that the field’s
energy has halved every 1,465 years or so.[18]
2.4 SHORT-LIVED COMETS
According
to evolutionary system, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar
system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the
sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer
than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000
years. Beside this, two other mechanisms can destroy comets ejections from the
solar system and collisions with planets. Ejections happen as comets pass too
close to the large planets, particularly Jupiter, and the planets’ gravity
kicks them out of the solar system. While ejections have been observed many
times, the first observed collision was in 1994, when Comet Shoemaker-Levi IX
slammed into Jupiter.
Given
the loss rates, it’s easy to compute a maximum age of comets. That maximum age
is only a few million years. Evidently, their prevalence makes sense if the
entire solar system was created just a few thousand years ago, but not if it
arose billions of years ago.[19]
2.5 CARBON-14 DATING
Carbon-14
(14C), also stated to as radiocarbon, is claimed to be a reliable dating method
for defining the age of fossils up to 50,000 to 60,000 years. If this claim is
true, the biblical account of a young earth (about 6,000 years) is in question,
since 14C dates of tens of thousands of years are common. Carbon-14 (or
radiocarbon) is a radioactive form of carbon that scientists use to date fossils.
But it decays so quickly with a half-life of only 5,730 years that none is
expected to remain in fossils after only a few hundred thousand years. Yet
carbon-14 has been detected in ‘ancient’ fossils supposedly up to hundreds of
millions of years old ever since the earliest days of radiocarbon dating. Even
if every atom in the whole earth were carbon-14, they would decay so quickly
that no carbon-14 would be left on earth after only 1 million years. These establish
very sturdy evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years
old. So the radiocarbon ages of all fossils and coal should be reduced to less
than 5,000 years, matching the timing of their burial during the Flood. The age
of diamonds should be reduced to the approximate time of biblical creation about
6,000 years ago.[20]
It has been proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below
Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of
carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of
years old.
2.6 DNA: BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL DECAYS TOO
FAST
Measurements
of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise
the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized 200,000 years down to
possibly as low as 6,000 years. DNA specialists claim that DNA cannot exist in
natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear
to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neanderthal bones,
insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils. Bacteria allegedly 250
million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage. Soft tissue
and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.[21]
In
2000, scientists claimed to have ‘resurrected’ bacteria, named Lazarus
bacteria, discovered in a salt crystal conventionally dated at 250 million
years old. They were surprised that the bacteria’s DNA was very similar to
modern bacterial DNA. If the modern bacteria were the result of 250 million
years of evolution, its DNA should be very different from the Lazarus bacteria. [22] However,
the finding of Lazarus bacteria is not outrageous or surprising when we look at
the Bible accounts. For example, Noah’s Flood likely deposited the salt beds
that were home to the bacteria. If the Lazarus bacteria are only about 4,500
years old (the approximate number of years that have passed since the worldwide
flood), their DNA is more likely to be intact and similar to modern bacteria,
as found.[23]
Beside
these many more are there;
·
Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
·
Many strata are too tightly bent.
·
Not enough sodium in the sea.
·
Too few supernova remnants.
·
Biological material decays too fast.
·
Too much helium in minerals.
·
Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic
strata.
·
Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
·
Agriculture is too recent.
3. NEO-CREATIONISM
Creationism
is being given new clothes by many new and very eloquent writers and speakers,
and it is expected by many that this will help it gain recognition in the elite
group of academics. One leader of the opposition to any form of creationism,
Dr. Eugenie C. Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science
Education, calls this advancement Neo-creationism. Phrases like "intelligent design
theory," "abrupt appearance theory," "evidence against
evolution," and the like, have sprung up, although the content of many of
the arguments is familiar.[24]
Notable
neo-creationist organizations include the Discovery Institute and its Center
for Science and Culture. Neo-creationists have yet to establish a recognized
line of legitimate scientific research and as of 2015 lack scientific and
academic legitimacy, even among many academics of evangelical Christian
colleges. Eugenie C. Scott and other critics regard neo-creationism as the most
successful form of irrationalism. The main form of neo-creationism is
intelligent design.[25] A
second form, abrupt appearance theory, which claims that the first life and the
universe appeared abruptly and that plants and animals appeared abruptly in
complex form, has occasionally been postulated
4. THE
POINT OF CONTROVERSY
The
controversy between the two views of creationism hinges on the meaning of the
Hebrew word yom, meaning ‘day’. Young Earth Creationists insist that the
meaning of the word yom in the context of Genesis 1–2 is a 24-hour
period of time. Old Earth Creationists disagree and believe that the word yom
is being used to denote a much longer duration of time. Old Earth Creationists
have used numerous biblical arguments to defend their view including the
following:
·
Yom
is used elsewhere in the Bible where it is referring to a long period of time,
particularly Psalm 90:4, which is later cited by the apostle Peter: “A day is
like a thousand years”.[26]
·
The seventh day is thousands of years
long. Genesis 2:2-3 states that God rested on the seventh day. Scripture
teaches that we are certainly still in the seventh day; therefore, the word
“day” could also be referring to a long period of time with reference to days
one through six.
·
The word day in Genesis 1–2 is longer
than 24 hours. Genesis 2:4 reads, “This is the account of the heavens and the
earth when they were created in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven”
(NASB). In this verse, day is referring to the first six days as a whole and
thus has a more flexible meaning than merely a 24-hour period.
·
The sixth day is probably longer than 24
hours. Genesis 2:19 tells us that Adam observed and then catalogued every
living animal on the earth. At face value, it does not appear that Adam could
have completed such a monumental task in a mere 24-hour period.
To
be sure, the issues separating Young and Old Earth Creationists are both
complex and important. However, this issue should not be made a test for
orthodoxy. There are godly men and women on both sides of this debate. In the
final investigation, biblical creationists both Young and Old Earth varieties have
a great deal in common and should work together to defend the historical
reliability of the Genesis account.
5. COMMON
GROUND
Old
Earth Creationists and their Young Earth Creationist hold several vital opinions
in common, including;
5.1 GOD’S DIRECT SUPERNATURAL CREATION
Both
young- and old-earthers hold on that God supernaturally, directly and
instantaneously fashioned all sort of animal and human as separate and
genetically distinct forms of life. Both embrace that every kind fashioned by
God was directly created de nova (brand-new) and did not come about by
God’s using natural procedures over a long period of time or interfering with
earlier categories of life in order to make developed forms (evolution).
5.2 THE HISTORICITY OF THE GENESIS
ACCOUNT
Further,
both young- and old creationists who are evangelical hold to the historicity of
the Genesis account. They accept that Adam and Eve were real people, the
originators of the entire human race. While some may agree for poetic form and
figure of speech in the narrative, all agree that it bears historical and
literal truth about origins. This becomes apparent by the New Testament
references to Adam and Eve, their creation and fall, as literal (cf. Luke 3:38;
Rom. 5:12; 1 Tim. 2:13-14).
5.3 ANTAGONISM TO NATURALISM
Both
groups are also settled in their hostility to naturalism, which they see as the
philosophical assumption of evolution. They correctly discern that without a
naturalistic preference, evolution loses its reliability. Ruling out the option
of supernatural involvement in the world begs the entire question in support of
evolution even before one begins.
5.4 ANTAGONISM TO MACROEVOLUTION
Similarly,
both are united in their disagreement to macroevolution, either theistic or
nontheistic; that is, they discard the theory of common ancestry. They both
deny that all forms of life derived by completely natural methods without
supernatural involvement from the outside. They repudiate that all living
things are like a tree associated to a common trunk and root; rather, they
affirm the distinct ancestry of all the basic forms of life, a picture more
like a forest of different trees. Microevolution, where small variations take
place within the basic kinds of created things, is acknowledged, but no macro
(large-scale) evolution occurs between different kinds. For example, both old-
and young-earth creationists approve that all dogs are related to an original
canine pair–part of the same tree. However, they repudiate that dogs, cats,
cows, and other created kinds are related like branches from one original tree.
CONCLUSION
In
the end, the age of the earth cannot TRULY be established by science. Whether
we believe in an earth that is 6,000 years old or billions of years old (or
anything in between), we must put our belief on faith and assumptions. "Old
earth" supporters must trust that methods such as radiometric dating are
reliable and have faith that nothing has occurred in history that may have interrupted
the normal decay of radio-isotopes. "Young earth" supporters must take
reliance on Bible as true and have faith that other aspects explain geological
evidence, such as the global flood, or God’s creating the universe in a way
that makes it look older than it is. For example, God created Adam and Eve as
adults, not babies. If a doctor had inspected Adam and Eve on the day they were
created, the doctor perhaps would have estimated them to be around 20 years old
(or whatever age they appeared to be). But the truth was that Adam and Eve
weren't even one day old yet. Either way, it is wise to evoke that whether you
believe in a young earth or an old earth, that doesn't make a difference when
it comes to salvation. This perspective is not a make-or-break deal as far as
whether or not you can be saved. Only faith in Jesus as your Savior from sin
can save you (John 14:6; John 3:16).
Notes
[1]Tim Chaffey and Jason Lisle, Old-Earth
Creationism on Trail: The Verdict Is In (USA: Master Books, 2010), 31.
[2] Jon W. Greene, “A Biblical Case
for Old-Earth Creationism” http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/old_earth_creationism.html (accessed on 03/11/15)
[3]Jon P. Alston, The Scientific
Case Against Scientific Creationism (USA: IUniverse Publisher, 2003), 26.
[4]Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer,
Evolution, Creationism, and the Battle to Control America's Classrooms
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 1.
[5]Jack W. Langford, The Gap Is
Not A Theory (USA: Xilibris Corporation, 2011), 72.
[6]Gordon Kainer, God's Solution
to the Doubting Dilemma (USA: Zondervan Publishing Company, 2016), 199-201.
[7]Tim Chaffey and Jason Lisle, Old-Earth
Creationism on Trial: The Verdict (USA: Master Books, 2008), 134.
[8] Joseph P. Free and Howard
Frederic Vos, Archaeology and Bible History (USA: Zondervan Publishing
Company, 1992), 26.
[9] D. V. M. Steven E. Dill, In
the Beginnings (USA: Xulon Press, 2010), 124.
[10] Genesis 2:2.
[11] Wayne D. Rossiter, Shadow of
Oz: Theistic Evolution and the Absent God (USA: Pickwick Publication, 2015),
6.
[12] Werner Gitt, “10 Dangers of Theistic
Evolution” http://creation.com/10-dangers-of-theistic-evolution (accessed on 03/11/15)
[13] Tim Chaffey, Dr. Jason Lisle, Old-Earth
Creationism on Trail: The Verdict (USA: Master Books, 2008), 74.
[14] D. Russell Humphreys, “Evidence
for a Young World” http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-008.htm (accessed on 03/11/15)
[15] Andrew A. Snelling “Very Little
Sediment on the Seafloor” https://answersingenesis.org/geology/sedimentation/1-very-little-sediment-on-the-seafloor/ (accessed on 03/11/15).
[16] A. Arthur Pinno, God Is
(USA: Xulon Press, 2011), 85.
[17]Tim Clarey, Dinosaurs: Marvels
of God's Design: The Science of the Biblical Account (USA: New Leaf
Publisher, 2015), 48.
[18]Ken Ham, The
New Answers Book Volume 4: Over 30 Questions on Creation/Evolution (USA:
New Leaf Publisher, 2013), 120.
[19] Danny Faulkner “Short-Lived
Comet” https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/comets/8-short-lived-comets/(accessed
on 04/11/15)
[20] John Ashton, Evolution
Impossible: 12 Reasons Why Evolution Cannot Explain the Origin of life (USA:
Master's Books, 2012), 142.
[21] D. Russell Humphreys, “Evidence
for a Young World” http://www.icr.org/article/evidence-for-young-world/(accessed
on 05/11/15)
[22] Ken Ham, The
New Answers Book Volume 4: Over 30 Questions on Creation/Evolution (USA:
New Leaf Publication, 2013), 129.
[23] Ham, The New Answers Book
Volume 4: Over 30 Questions on Creation/Evolution, 133.
[24] Henry M. Morris,
“Neocreationism” http://www.icr.org/article/neocreationism/(accessed on
11/11/15)
[25] Eugenie Carol Scott, Evolution
vs. Creationism: An Introduction (London: University of California Press,
2004), 113-14.
[26] 2 Peter 3:8
0 comments:
Post a Comment