Five biblical reasons I am not a young-Earth creationist

Genesis__1

I was a young-Earth creationist (YEC) during my first few years as an undergraduate geology major, believing that the Bible required that the universe is no older than about 10,000 years, and that geology, properly understood, supported that position. I was a student member of the Creation Research Society, and looked forward to the day that I would have my Master’s degree so I could be a full member. I knew there were problems with the YEC understandings of Earth’s geological record, but figured that these would be solved with further research, and that I might even have a role in the triumph of young-Earth creationism over old-Earth evolutionism.

There are many Christians who are fascinated by God’s good creation, and it is my experience is that it is not all that rare for there to be YECs in university geology programs. Some YEC geology majors are somehow able to hold onto their YEC beliefs all the way to graduation—or even through graduate studies—but many others have a crisis of faith and either abandon Christianity or are hobbled with deep doubts. Other YEC geology students, such as myself, end up switching to old-Earth Christianity with a vibrant faith in Christ, and with their confidence in the Bible still intact.

My conversion from YEC to old-Earth Christianity was driven primarily by the writings of theologically-conservative scholars such as Francis Schaeffer, Bernard Ramm, Arthur Custance, and Pattle Pun. These devout Christian intellectuals demonstrated that one could have a very high view of Scripture as the inerrant Word of God, and hold to interpretations of the opening chapters of Genesis that varied from the young-Earth view. Once my mind was open to old-Earth biblical interpretations, I was able to more objectively weigh the geological arguments for a young-Earth vs old-Earth. I concluded that the YEC side was offering few credible scientific arguments for their version of Earth history.

My reasons for believing that the young-Earth interpretation is not biblically necessary have matured over the decades since then, and do not match the arguments that some other old-Earth Christians might offer. Most significantly, I reject the argument that Genesis is merely a myth with no relation to real events. I believe that Genesis 1-11 is deeply rooted in events that really happened.

Here are my top five biblical reasons I am not a young-Earth creationist.

1. Genre

Bookstores are divided into different sections, such as fiction, history, biography, science, art, religion, and self-help. If you look at a book from the poetry shelves, you will see that its contents follow very different rules than do books off of a fiction shelf. Within the fiction section, the books from the science fiction section are written with different writing conventions than those from the romantic fiction area. These broad categories, such as mystery, fantasy, and graphic novels, are what we call genres. Within a genre, there might be subgenres, each with its own styles and rules of interpretation.

The Bible contains literature written in a number of different genres, including narrative, law, wisdom, psalm, parable, genealogy, prophesy, apocalypse, and epistle. One does not read a poetic passage in the same way as one reads a narrative. As an example, consider Exodus 14-15. Chapter 14 tells the story of the crossing of the Red Sea in narrative form. Chapter 15 retells the story as a poem—the songs of Moses and Miriam. The narrative tells us that “the Lord drove the sea by a strong east wind,” (14:21), while the poem tells us “At the blast of your nostrils the waters piled up” (15:8). Did God send a strong wind, or did he send a blast from his nostrils? We don’t see any contradiction between these passages, because we understand the difference between prose and poetry. Individual books of the Bible may contain multiple types of genre. One cannot make a blanket statement that “Genesis is narrative,” because not all of Genesis is written as a narrative; there are stretches of genealogy, poetry, and other genres embedded in the story.

YECs commonly argue that the book of Genesis is “historical narrative” and must therefore be read “literally.” A YEC biblical scholar who has written much on this is Steven Boyd, who has done a statistical analysis on verb forms in Old Testament narrative and poetic passages, and come to the conclusion that Genesis 1 is indeed in the narrative genre. According to Boyd, old-Earth Christians who say that Genesis 1 is something other than historical narrative can be proven to be wrong by this modern computer-aided statistical analysis.

The problem is one of oversimplification, as Boyd’s analysis assumes that there are only two options: poetry and historical narrative. It is not always easy to determine the genre of a passage in the Bible, as there are subtleties, variations, and overlap between genres and subgenres. Genesis 1 is certainly not poetry in the same sense as a psalm or proverb—we didn’t need a statistical analysis to tell us this—but the chapter also has literary features that distinguish it from ordinary Hebrew historical narrative passages. Boyd’s analysis missed these nuances. One of these distinctions is the overall structure of the chapter, with the repetition of phrases such as “And there was evening and there was morning, the nth day,” and “God saw that it was good.” There is really no other chapter in the Old Testament—or other ancient Hebrew literature—that has a structure quite like this. Furthermore, the vocabulary is at a higher level than in most of the Old Testament, such as using “lights” instead of sun and moon, and the naming of animals with broad categories rather than using specific names. The passage is still a narrative, but has poetry-like elements, and is in a subgenre of its own. Old Testament scholar C. John Collins describes the genre of Genesis 1 as “exalted prose narrative.”

A further problem for the YEC interpretation is that just because a passage is a narrative doesn’t mean that everything in that passage has to be taken literally in the way YECs mean literally. For example, Jesus stated that he is “the door of the sheep” (John 10:7) in a narrative passage, but no one takes this as a literal statement. Likewise, in the long Joseph narrative (Genesis 37, 39-50), we are told that “all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth” (Gen 41:57). Few biblical scholars take this as a literal statement which requires us to believe that people came from places as far away as Japan and Mesoamerica to purchase grain.

If one gets the genre of a passage in Scripture incorrect—and YECs get the genre of Genesis 1 at least partially incorrect—then it is likely that one will get the interpretation of that passage at least partially incorrect as well.

2. The meaning of “yom” (day) in Genesis

Genesis 1 begins with “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” and then goes on to describe six days of creation, each ending with “And there was evening and there was morning, the nth day.” Most YECs insist that the only way to interpret this passage is that verse 1 must be included as part of the first day, and that the six days must be literal, consecutive 24-hour days.

There are at least four ways to answer this claim, each of which is sufficient by itself as a rebuttal to the “literal” young-Earth interpretation. To start with, Old Testament scholars are divided as to whether Genesis 1:1—“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” —is (1) a summary of the entire creation week, (2) an event that occurred during day 1, or (3) an event that occurred before day 1. If the initial creation of the heavens and the earth occurred prior to the events of day 1 of Genesis 1, this opens up a variety of interpretive options that do not require a young Earth.

A second consideration that may be a problem for the literal-days interpretation is that there is no sun in the sky until day four (Genesis 1:14-18). According to Genesis 1:14, one purpose of the sun and moon is to “serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years” (NIV). As far back as the third and fourth century, Origin and Augustine—and others—argued that one cannot have a day, in the sense that we understand day, if we do not have a sun as a time marker. We are not, therefore, required to believe that the days of creation are literal 24-hour days in the sense that modern YECs believe is required by the text. This did not lead church fathers to an old-Earth reading of Genesis 1, but it did lead them to question the literal 24-hour day interpretation.

A third observation about the days of Genesis 1 is that “there was evening and there was morning” is not literally a 24-hour day in Hebrew thinking. In our system of reckoning days, a literal day runs from midnight to midnight. To the ancient Hebrews, a complete day ran from sunset to sunset, not “evening and morning.” In fact, “there was evening and there was morning” is literally a night, not a day. The use of the phrase “there was evening and there was morning” could mark a pause in the action rather than the passage of a literal day, or there could even be a figurative meaning to the expression.

Finally, most conservative biblical scholars believe that Moses was involved in the writing of Genesis, perhaps by gathering written or oral materials from earlier times. Moses was also the author of Psalm 90, which includes

For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night. (verse 4)

The immediate context of Psalm 90:4 is creation, with mentions in verses 2-3 of the creation of the earth, and humans being created from dust. One observation we can make about verse 4 is that time is not the same to God as it is to us. God is not restricted by time the way we are. Applying this back to Genesis 1, we are not required to believe that God’s days must be the same as our days. This is especially true for days 1-3, with no sun to mark days, but could also apply to the days in the entire creation week. It seems that modern young-Earth creationists may be more concerned about the “literal” meaning of the days of creation than Moses himself was!

3. Animal death and the fall

Young-Earth believers often argue that Earth cannot possibly be millions of years old because death did not occur until after Adam sinned. They will refer to verses such as Romans 5:12, which states, “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.” The YEC reasoning is that if all death came into the world through Adam’s sin, then there could not have been millions of years of death prior to Adam. Sedimentary rocks in Earth’s crust contain many quintillions of fossils, which are the remains of dead creatures, ranging from single-celled organisms and plants, to vertebrates, such as dinosaurs and mammals. The YEC interpretation requires all of these fossils to have died sometime after Adam sinned. Adam did not live millions of years ago, therefore Earth could not be millions of years old.

The problem with this YEC argument is that it is an over-reading of what the Bible actually teaches about death in our world. The Bible does indeed teach that human death is tied to Adam’s sin. Adam and Eve did not literally physically die on the literal day they ate the forbidden fruit, but they did literally physically die at some point after access to the Tree of Life was denied to them. But the Bible never ties animal death to Adams sin. The relevant passages are Genesis 3:14-19, Romans 5:12-17, Romans 8:19-22, and 1 Corinthians 15:21-28;35-57. None of these verses, nor any other passage of the Bible, teach that animal death began with Adam’s sin. In fact, the Bible never even teaches that animals were created to live forever.

4. Genealogies

Most young-Earth advocates will say that we know how old Earth is by adding up the years in all of the genealogies of the Bible. The genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 contain chronological information, such as “When Seth had lived 105 years, he fathered Enosh… When Enosh had lived 90 years, he fathered Kenan… (Genesis 5:6,9).” Adding these together, along with chronological information in the rest of the Old Testament, and then tying these genealogies into certain dates for late-Old Testament events, results in a timeline that points back to Adam being created about 6000 years ago (or 4004 BC, as Archbishop Ussher famously calculated). Earth is, according to the YEC interpretation, only six days older than Adam, so Earth itself also is only 6000 years old as well.

There are several problems with this line of reasoning. Some YECs recognize these, and are willing to push Adam back a few thousand years, such as to 10,000 BC. I would like to focus on just one problem. As an old-Earth Christian, I believe in a real Adam and Eve. If we take these genealogies and chronologies in the YEC sense, then Adam lived in the Neolithic, about 6-10 thousand years ago (some old-Earth Christians push this date back further). The genealogies may point to this time frame, but they do not help us to address the interpretive questions we have with Genesis 1. In other words, Adam may have lived 10,000 years ago, and the Earth and universe could still be billions of years old. We can believe in a real Adam, Eve, Garden of Eden, and first sin, and hold to one of the various old-Earth understandings of Genesis 1, such as the day-age, analogical-days, historical creation, or framework interpretations.

In other words, the genealogies are largely irrelevant to the question of the age of the Earth.

5. The New Testament does not teach a young Earth

Finally, YECs often say that the New Testament, including Jesus himself, teaches a young Earth. They will point to verses such as Mark 10:6, where Jesus says, “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female,’” or Luke 11:50-51, which states, “so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah.” YECs will emphasize the “from the beginning of creation” part of Mark 10:6, because it seems to place the first humans at the very beginning of time, not billions of years after the initial creation.

We need to think a little more carefully, however, about the phrase “from the beginning of creation,” and ask the question, “Creation of what?” Note that Jesus does not say “from the beginning of creation of the universe.” The context in Mark 10 is a discussion of divorce, not the origin of the sun, moon, stars, and Earth itself. Jesus specifically refers to God making humans male and female, whom he brought together in marriage: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Mark 10:7-8; Gen 2:24). It is possible that Jesus had in mind “from the beginning of the creation of the universe,” but given the marriage context, it is also possible that Jesus was referring to “the beginning of the creation of humans and marriage.” The YEC interpretation of Mark 10:6 is possible, but there are other valid understandings of this verse, so it is a stretch to say that Jesus was a young-Earth creationist.

Conclusion

The young-Earth, calendar-day interpretation is one of several possible interpretations of the opening chapters of Genesis. Other interpretations that are within biblical orthodoxy include the day-age, framework, and analogical-days interpretations, as outlined in the Report of the Creation Study Committee of the inerrancy-affirming, theologically-conservative Presbyterian Church in America. The age of the Earth is not used as part of a theological argument anywhere in the Bible, and has no bearing on any core doctrine, so it should not be a topic Christians divide over. Some YECs insist that the age of the Earth is a gospel issue, but this is clearly not the case. Most old-Earth Christians, including myself, affirm the core doctrines of the Christian faith that are involved in the opening chapters of Genesis, such as creation from nothing by the triune God of the Bible, a real Adam and Eve, a real Garden of Eden, a real fall into sin, and a real promise of a coming savior (Genesis 3:15).

I adopt an old-Earth view for both biblical and scientific reasons, but I fully accept and respect those who, for biblical reasons, accept the young-Earth view. To insist that Genesis only allows for the young-Earth interpretation is not supportable biblically, as I have briefly outlined here. Being that there is overwhelming geological evidence that Earth is much older than 10,000 years, it is harmful for evangelism and discipleship to present the young-Earth view as the only infallible interpretation of Genesis.

Grace and Peace

——————-

Notes:

©2019 Kevin Nelstead

A printer-friendly PDF of this article may be downloaded here: Five biblical reasons I am not a young earth creationist.pdf

Unless stated otherwise, Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version (ESV). The quote marked as NIV comes from the 1984 edition of the New International Version.

YEC is an abbreviation for young-Earth creationist/creationism that is accepted by many within the YEC community. Other common abbreviations in this discussion are OEC (old-Earth creationist) and TE or EC (theistic evolutionist or evolutionary creationist).

I gave links to books by Schaeffer, Ramm, Custance, and Pun, which greatly influenced my thinking back in the 1980s. A few books I would recommend now are here.

The Facebook discussion for this post is here.

Review – Understanding Scientific Theories of Origins

Bishop, R.C., Funck, L.L., Lewis, R.J., Moshier, S.O., and Walton, J.H, 2018, Understanding Scientific Theories of Origins: Cosmology, Geology, and Biology in Christian Perspective, Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 659 p.

Understanding Scientific Theories of Origins is authored by five professors from Wheaton College. Wheaton is an Evangelical institution with rigorous admissions standards, and therefore has a smarter-than-usual student body. These professors have been jointly teaching a class on origins (SCI 311) at Wheaton for a number of years, giving students an overview of both biblical and scientific aspects of origins.

The book is divided into seven sections:

  1. Getting Started on the Journey – Four chapters on biblical interpretation and the interaction between science and Christian faith. These chapters lay a foundation for the rest of the book, and introduce themes which permeate many of the scientific concepts that follow, such as the functional integrity and ministerial action of the creation.
  2. Cosmic Origins – Six chapters covering Genesis 1, the big bang model and fine tuning in the universe. The unit ends with a chapter on “Biblical and Theological Perspectives on the Origins of the Universe” (units 3–6 end with a similar chapter).
  3. Origin and Geologic History of Earth – Eight chapters covering the origin of the solar system, catastrophism and uniformitarianism; the interpretation of the flood account in Genesis, geologic time, and Earth history.
  4. Origin of Life on Earth – Five chapters covering abiogenesis (the origin of life), as well as theological perspectives on the topic.
  5. Origin of Species and the Diversity of Life – Five chapters on biological evolution.
  6. Human Origins – Four chapters on biblical and evolutionary perspectives on the origin of humanity.
  7. Concluding Postscript – One chapter: “Biblical and Theological Perspectives on New Creation, Creation Care, and Science Education.”

This book is not written as an unbiased overview of all the Christian perspectives on origins. In other words, it is not like the Four Views on ________ books (some of which are excellent) that are already available at Christian bookstores. Instead, the book is written from a perspective that accepts big-bang cosmology, standard old-Earth geology, and biological evolution as scientifically-valid ways of understanding God’s creation. In terms of biblical interpretation, the book is written from a perspective that views the Bible as the inspired and authoritative Word of God, but which also places a strong interpretive emphasis on the worldviews present in the ancient world. If you have read any of John Walton’s Lost World books (Such as The Lost World of Genesis One), you will have an idea what to expect in the sections on biblical interpretation (though written more for a general audience than the Lost World books). The authors, therefore, fall within the broad credal orthodoxy of “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The authors accept Adam and Eve as historical persons, as well as Noah’s flood as a historical event, but interprets these less literally than either young-Earth creationists, or old-Earth creationists such as Hugh Ross.

The chapters which examine what the Bible says about origins topics (e.g. Chapter 13, The Genesis Flood, and Chapter 29, Human Origins: Genesis 2–3) are excellent. In fact, the examination of why Noah’s flood does not, according to Genesis 6–9, have to be what we would picture as a global deluge, is one of the best I have read. This book will provide its readers with a solid foundation not only for understanding the biblical and theological side of origins topics, but will give them greater confidence in the Bible as the inerrant and authoritative Word of God.

The section on geology is the longest part of the book, and consists of the following chapters:

  • Chapter 11 – Origin of the Earth and Solar System
  • Chapter 12 – Historical Roots of Geology: Catastrophism and Uniformitarianism
  • Chapter 13 – The Genesis Flood
  • Chapter 14 – The Rock Cycle and Timescales of Geologic Processes
  • Chapter 15 – Rocks of Ages: Measuring Geologic Time
  • Chapter 16 – Plate Tectonics: A Theory for How the Earth Works
  • Chapter 17 – Reading Earth’s History in Rocks and Fossils
  • Chapter 18 – Biblical and Theological Perspectives on Earth History

In this unit, Understanding Scientific Theories of Origins does not cover the same breadth of material as a complete introductory textbook on physical or historical geology would, but what it does cover, it covers in some depth. For instance, Chapter 15 not only discusses radiometric dating in a general way, but introduces more advanced topics such as concordia and isochron dating that are not found in most introductory geology textbooks. Knowledge of these techniques provides readers with greater confidence that radiometric dating works, and usually works well.

Understanding Scientific Theories of Origins offers an excellent overview of the biblical and scientific issues surrounding the origins of the universe, Earth, life, biological diversity, and human beings. It is well-written and accessible to non-scientists as well as scientists. It will be a reference work that I go to often for science topics I’m a little weaker on, as well as for biblical and theological arguments regarding origins. I recommend the book for:

  • Educators in Christian schools. This book would be a great teacher’s supplement to my Earth Science: God’s World, Our Home.
  • Home-school parents.
  • Pastors and youth-group workers.
  • Anyone who is serious about Bible-science issues: young-Earth creationists (so they have a better understanding of the “other side”), old-Earth creationists, and evolutionary creationists
  • Christians in the sciences

Grace and Peace

Copyright © 2019 Kevin Nelstead, GeoChristian.com

I thank IVP Academic for giving me a review copy of this book.

 

Review – A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture

AReformedApproachToScienceAndScriptureA Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture is largely a summary of the insights of the late theologian R.C. Sproul on the topic of the relationship between science and Christian faith. The author is Keith Mathison, professor of systematic theology at Reformation Bible College in Florida, and the book is available as a free Kindle book. Don’t let the zero-dollar price tag fool you; this is a great little e-book.

It is common for young-Earth creationists to ask something like, “Are you going to believe God’s infallible Word or man’s fallible science?” There are many ways that an old-Earth Christian could respond to this false distinction between science and Christian faith. I usually respond by saying that I believe that all truth is God’s truth, and that if there appears to be a conflict between the Bible and science, then either we misunderstand God’s Word, God’s world, or both.

R.C. Sproul basically said the same thing, and much more, as Mathison outlines in this book. Much of the book focuses on the topic of the age of the Earth, but it touches on other science and faith issues as well. The book has seven chapters, which I will summarize:

Chapter 1 – All Truth is God’s Truth

It is common for postmodernists to question the concept of truth, but unfortunately, it is also common for Bible-believing Christians to do the same.  These otherwise theologically-orthodox Christians fear that if we consider God’s revelation in creation to be infallible or authoritative, that this will somehow detract from the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. Mathison points to the teachings not only of Sproul, but of Augustine, Calvin, and Bavinck to show that “all truth is God’s truth” is an idea that is consistent both with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and Reformed theology in general.

Chapter 2 – General and Special Revelation

Mathison distinguishes general revelation, which is available to all, and special revelation, such as the Bible, which points us to God’s work of salvation. Because God is truthful in everything he does, Mathison reminds us that “God’s revelation in creation is equally as infallible as His revelation in Scripture, because in both cases, it is God who is doing the revealing, and God is always infallible.”

Chapter 3 – Interpreting General and Special Revelation

We should not approach perceived conflicts between science and the Bible as “God’s infallible Word or man’s fallible science,” but in light of fallible human interpretations of both God’s infallible Word and God’s infallible creation. It is clear that fallible humans have misinterpreted both. Mathison explores this by reviewing the geocentrism vs. heliocentrism controversy of the 1500s and 1600s.

Chapter 4 – Luther, Calvin, and Copernicus

Both Luther and Calvin viewed Copernicus’s heliocentrism as heretical. This chapter takes a closer look at the Copernican Revolution, and what we now recognize to be faulty biblical hermeneutics by the reformers.

Chapter 5 – Earthly Things and Heavenly Things

In this chapter, the author takes a closer look at how the fall into sin affected human reasoning. Human reasoning is affected by sin, but it is not totally ruined. This is especially true in regards to general revelation. Unbelievers will get some things wrong in their understanding of the creation, but this is true for believers as well, and is also true of believers when it comes to Biblical interpretation.

Chapter 6 – When Science and Scripture Conflict

Sproul stated that if he is sure he correctly understands the Scripture, and if Scripture and science seem to conflict, that he would “stand with the Word of God a hundred times out of a hundred.” I agree with this statement. In most situations, we must be willing to take a closer look at both our scientific and Biblical interpretations. One key is to discern what Scripture actually teaches, and the failure to do this is where many science-faith conflicts come from. Mathison states that “Christians have absolutely nothing to fear ultimately from scientific research.”

Chapter 7 – The Age of the Universe and Genesis 1

Sproul, who leaned towards a young-Earth, stated that “the Bible does not give us a date of creation.” In light of this, Mathison warns us against creating false dilemmas in discussions about origins. As an example, Mathison writes, “I have also encountered Christians who have argued that any believer who is convinced that the universe is billions of years old should abandon Christianity because it would mean that the Bible is not true.” This false dichotomy is, unfortunately, common in the young-Earth movement, and it is very harmful both for discipleship and evangelism. When we teach our youth that if the Earth is millions of years old the Bible is a lie, we set them up for a fall. If we present this false dichotomy in evangelism to scientists or the scientifically-literate public, we place an unnecessary obstacle to Christian faith.

It is significant that R.C. Sproul leaned towards the young-Earth interpretation of Genesis, yet was able ultimately to say “I don’t know.” Sproul maintained a charitable relationship with those he disagreed with, which is a loving, Christ-following example for those on all sides of the origins debates within the Church.

The book is available in Kindle format from Amazon.

Grace and Peace

Copyright © 2018 Kevin Nelstead, GeoChristian.com

 

 

Six Books to Understand Genesis — Old-Earth Edition

6books

The web site of the young-Earth creationist documentary Is Genesis History has listed “Six Books to Understand Genesis,” all written from a young-Earth perspective. As a counterweight, here are six old-Earth books written by highly-qualified, Bible-believing, inerrancy-affirming, theologically-conservative scholars. As old-Earth Christians, these academics believe in the truthfulness of Scripture just as much as any young-Earth creationist. The issue of the age of the Earth is certainly one of biblical interpretation, not of biblical authority.

Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary by C. John Collins. This mid-level introduction includes an outline of the analogical-days interpretation of Genesis 1.

Seven Days that Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science by John Lennox. This is the book on the interpretation of Genesis that I recommend most often, because it is very good, and because it is short.

Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation, edited by J Daryl Charles. This gives a rather detailed introduction to various young-Earth and old-Earth interpretations. This is better and deeper than most of the “Three views on ______” books on the market.

The ESV Study Bible. If someone believes that only “liberals” accept an ancient Earth, point them to this scholarly masterpiece. The notes on Genesis don’t “take sides” on the age of the Earth or the extent of Noah’s flood, but it is clear that the scholars don’t believe that Christians must accept the young-Earth interpretation.

The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth by Davis Young and Ralph Stearley. This book gives a good summary of the historical development of the concept of an ancient Earth, and gives numerous reasons why young-Earth arguments about geologic time and flood geology simply do not work in the real world of geology.

The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth: Can Noah’s Flood Explain the Grand Canyon? edited by Carol Hill and others. Most of the contributors to this volume are Christians; a few of them are not. Young-Earth creationists love to point to the Grand Canyon as something that only could have formed by catastrophism. The authors of this beautifully-illustrated book show why, once again, young-Earth flood geology simply does not work.

Four out of my six recommendations look more at the biblical and theological side of the debate rather than the scientific side. It is my conviction that the Bible is at the heart of the matter; most young-Earth creationists will not listen to what we have to say about science until they become at least a little bit open to the biblical case for an old Earth. The two remaining books, reflecting my own background in geology, provide devastating critiques of young-Earth geological arguments.

Young-Earth creationism is not biblically necessary, nor is it scientifically credible. To insist otherwise does harm in terms of Christian discipleship, apologetics, and evangelism.

Grace and Peace

Six theological reasons why Christians do not have to embrace six-day young-Earth creationism

IGHA vocal set of Christians believes that the book of Genesis requires the age of the universe and Earth to be something like 6000 years. This belief is being reinforced by the release last year (2017) of the documentary Is Genesis History?, which was narrated by Del Tackett, and produced by Thomas Purifoy. The film is very well-made, and will undoubtedly be shown in numerous churches, youth groups, Christian schools, and home schools for years to come.

Thomas Purifoy recently published an article entitled Six Reasons Reformed Christians Should Embrace Six-Day Creation at Challies.com, the influential website of Reformed blogger Tim Challies. Purifoy concludes his article by saying that “6-day creation is the only longterm viable option for Reformed theology.” I also write from within the Reformed, and larger Reformation, community. There are many inerrancy-affirming, theologically-conservative, highly-qualified, Reformed scholars and pastors who disagree with Purifoy’s conclusion about young-Earth creationism being the only viable option for our theological community. I have drawn from the work of many of these pastors and scholars over the past four decades, and hope in this essay to show that one can be true to both the Word of God and to Reformation theology, and come to the conclusion that Earth may indeed be far older than 6000 years.

In his article, Thomas Purifoy gives six theological reasons for embracing young-Earth creationism. Four of the following section headings are identical in wording to those used by Purifoy in his article; two of the headings have been slightly modified. It should not be surprising that I, as an old-Earth Christian with deep roots in the Reformation, have almost identical statements as Thomas Purifoy regarding our theology of creation. This is because the age of the universe is a secondary matter, and Reformed young-Earth creationists and I have much more in common in regards to our theology than those points that divide us.

1. God’s goodness is indeed reflected in both the original and present creation

Thomas Purifoy had his heading worded a little differently for his first point in his Challies.com article – “God’s Goodness Must Be Reflected in the Original Creation.” I could have used the same wording, but I decided to expand the concept a bit.

In Genesis 1, God does indeed pronounce his creation to be “good,” and even “very good.” There is a bit of discussion among commentators about what exactly is meant by “good” in the opening passage of Genesis (1:1-2:3). Is this goodness the same as perfection, or is it a goodness of purpose? Young-Earth creationists often portray this goodness as meaning perfect in every way, without anything that we would consider to be a flaw. The pre-sin world is regularly depicted as being a gentle world, overflowing with abundance, and where the overall system is mature and complete, with no hint of anything in the least bit deadly or dangerous. The entire Earth is described in this young-Earth scenario as if the entire world were the garden of Eden. This perspective minimizes the fact that Genesis 2 portrays Eden as a limited sanctuary in Mesopotamia, with the world outside of the garden as a wild place in need of being subdued, or brought under the dominion of the newly-appointed viceregents over creation, Adam and Eve. This wildness implies lions and tigers and bears, not just bunnies and cuddly puppies (or domesticated, friendly Tyrannosaurus rexes). Perhaps the Earth of Genesis 1 wasn’t quite as tame as the young-Earth advocates believe it was. Like Aslan in the Chronicles of Narnia, the creation was good, but not necessarily tame or safe.

There is a clue in Genesis 2 that helps us narrow down the meaning of the goodness spoken of in Genesis 1. In 2:18 we are told that there was something “not good” in the creation: that the man was alone. This certainly indicates that the goodness in Genesis 1 is not the same as moral goodness; it was not immoral or evil that Adam was alone. It may also mean that the goodness referred to is not the same as perfection. In other words, something can be good in God’s eyes even if it is not yet perfect. It seems then, that the goodness referred to in Genesis 1 is a goodness of purpose, not a moral goodness—though God is morally good—nor a goodness of perfection. God saw that the creation was very good for the plans he had in mind.

That this goodness in Genesis 1 means something other than what young-Earth creationists claim is amplified by what the rest of the Bible teaches about the goodness of creation. We see in Psalm 19:1-6 that the heavens still declare the glory of God. In Acts 17:17, God’s present goodness in creation is revealed in his providential provision of rain and crops. In Romans 1:19-20 the creation still fulfills one of its purposes in that it declares God’s attributes, so that people are without excuse when they deny him. Paul, in 1 Timothy 4:4, declares this ongoing goodness of creation even more explicitly: “For everything created by God is good.” None of these biblical claims would hold true if the creation didn’t still retain a significant amount of its goodness even after Adam’s fall into sin. If our world in its present state can be described by God as being good, then there is nothing to stop God from considering the pre-Adam world as being good and ready for his redemptive plan as well, even over a period of many millions of years.

2. Adam’s sin resulted in human spiritual and physical death

In the Challies.com article, this was stated as “Adam’s Sin Resulted in Universal Corruption and Death,” which goes well beyond what the Bible itself says about death in the natural world.

As an old-Earth Christian, I believe in a real Adam who committed a real sin which brought spiritual and physical death to the human race. The Bible nowhere states, however, that animal death is the result of human sin. The relevant passages (in Genesis 3:14-19, Romans 5:12-17, Romans 8:19-22, and 1 Corinthians 15:21-28;35-57) all make a connection between Adam’s sin and human death, but none of these passages tie animal death to Adam’s sin.

Because of this, we cannot say with theological certainty, as Purifoy does in his article, that the fossils in Earth’s crust are a testimony to God’s judgment on human sin. The fossil record is simply not a topic the Scriptures address. The Bible is silent on the topic of animal death before the fall, and does not even say that animals were created to be immortal. Instead we see in the Scriptures that carnivorous activity is a normal part of God’s good creation. In Job 38:39-41 and Psalm 104:21-22 (which is a re-telling of Genesis 1 in poetic form), God is the one who provides food for the predators, with no hint that this is evil or something less than good. We may cringe a bit when we see a cheetah take down a gazelle in a documentary, but there is no sign in the Bible that either God or the ancient Hebrews viewed predator-prey relationships as evil or as the consequence of Adam’s sin.

The “universal corruption and death” dogma is often stated as one of the prime biblical arguments for a young Earth, and yet this doctrine is neither “expressly set down in Scripture” nor may it be “by good and necessary consequence deduced from Scripture” (Westminster Confession 1.6, slight grammatical rewording). Despite this, young-Earth creationists often hold this “no animal death before the fall” teaching forth as a litmus test of Christian orthodoxy.

3. The pattern of creation/fall/redemption culminates in the new creation

My wording of this third point is identical to how it was worded in Purifoy’s article.

The outworking of salvation history in the young-Earth perspective is:

creation/fall/redemption/consummation.

The outworking of salvation history in the old-Earth perspective is:

creation/fall/redemption/consummation.

The content and truthfulness of the gospel does not depend in any way on the age of the Earth. In his article, Purifoy suggests that the miracles of Jesus, and the future redemption of the creation, point both back to the original creation and forward to the upcoming new creation. There is no problem with this in itself. But then he states, “For the bookends of creation to match, they must be mirrors of each other. This is only possible with 6-day creation.” There are many connections between Genesis 1-2 and the final chapters of the Bible, Revelation 21-22, but I am not sure that Purifoy’s “mirroring” can be supported from Scripture. There are not only many parallels between Genesis and Revelation, but a number of contrasts as well. In Genesis, the world is immature; in Revelation, the world is mature. In Genesis, the world is pregnant with possibilities; in Revelation those possibilities have come to be. In Genesis, the couple is naked; in Revelation the multitude is clothed in Christ’s righteousness. Genesis has a garden; Revelation a city. It is not necessary for the New Jerusalem to be a mirror of the Garden of Eden (though there are important parallels), so there is no need to have matching bookends, and the declaration of “only possible with 6-day creation” falls apart.

4. Scripture must be used to interpret scripture

Again, my wording of this point is the same to how it is worded in Purifoy’s article. As the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it, “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself” (1.9).

The rule of letting Scripture interpret Scripture does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Earth is only 6000 years old. Even a straightforward comparison of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 should be enough to tell us that at least one of these texts is meant to be taken as something less than a completely literal passage. This should lead us to a further investigation of genre, which is a topic that is often oversimplified in young-Earth literature to “if it isn’t poetry, it must be historical narrative.” If we get the genre of a passage incorrect, then it is likely we will get the interpretation of the passage at least partly incorrect. Many scholars do not believe the genre is “historical narrative,” so it is quite possible that the young-Earth interpretation is incorrect as well.

I could write about letting Scripture interpret Scripture in regards to Genesis 1, but will focus instead on the flood account of Genesis 6-9. One of the reasons I believe Noah’s flood may have been local rather than global in extent is by using Scripture to interpret Scripture. In almost all cases where universal language is used in the Old Testament, the meaning is something other than the superficial, literalistic sense. In other words, “all the earth” usually means something less than “all the earth” in the Bible. To give just one example, we are told in 1 Kings 18:10 that, “As the Lord your God lives, there is no nation or kingdom where my lord [Ahab] has not sent to seek you [Elijah].” No commentator will tell you that this passage must be taken literally to mean that Ahab sent people to all nations from the Aborigines to the Zulus to find Elijah. The literal words say “no nation or kingdom” without any sort of qualifier, but just about any reader, ancient or modern, will read this universal statement as meaning “no nation or kingdom in this area” rather than in the entire Earth. If non-universal language is the norm in the Old Testament—and it is—then we should be at least open to considering this to be the case in Genesis 6-9 as well.

5. Essential doctrines are related to history

Once again, as an old-Earth Christian, my wording of this header is the same as in the young-Earth article.

In the Bible, God often reveals himself not by giving us a list of doctrinal points, but by acting and speaking in history. In fact, Christianity is embedded in history in a way that perhaps no other major religion is. Creation and fall happened in real history. God’s covenant with Abraham, his giving of the law through Moses, and the kingship of David, are presented as real historical events, and are all part of salvation history. Most significantly, the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ all happened in history. If these events did not really happen, then Christianity is not true. As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:14, “if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.”

Once again, as an old-Earth Christian, I believe that Genesis is history. Many Christian doctrines are tied to the historical events of Genesis. Not a single one of these doctrines, however, depends on Earth being 6000 years old. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” This is a historical statement for us as Christians whether this happened in roughly 4000 B.C., or 13.8 billion years ago. The alphabet portion of the New England Primer began with “In Adam’s fall we sinned all.” This statement holds true whether Earth is 6000 years old or 4.6 billion years old.

6. Presuppositional thinking helps us understand the discipline of science

One final time, I have left the wording of this point intact from the article by the producer of Is Genesis History?

Presuppositional apologetics is based on the recognition that no one enters into an investigation with an empty mind, and that we all have prejudices that make us open to certain arguments, and closed to others. In other words, there are no neutral positions on any topic. As Christians, we carry certain assumptions about the nature of God’s Word and God’s world into investigations. We don’t take this approach because we have “blind faith,” but because the Holy Spirit has worked those convictions into our hearts and minds, and because we recognize that this approach seems reasonable in light of what we know about the world around us.

My basic presupposition as I approach the study of the relationship between the Bible and science is that all truth is God’s truth, whether it be truth revealed in God’s Word, or truth revealed in God’s world. If there seems to be a conflict between these two revelations, then either we do not correctly understand God’s Word, or we do not correctly understand God’s world (or maybe a bit of both). In the end, if we come to a point of complete understanding, there will be no conflict.

Sometimes young-Earth scholars express their presuppositional approach with a question such as, “Will you believe the infallible words of the Bible, or the fallible words of scientists?” This question assumes that there are some truths that are more true than other truths (as if one true thing can be truer than another true thing). It also makes the assumption that the young-Earth interpretation itself is infallible, when in reality our interpretations can be wrong. Fallible people misread God’s infallible Word, and fallible people misread God’s good creation. It is one thing to have a presupposition that the God of the universe has revealed himself in his inerrant Word; it is a mistake to start with the presupposition that one’s own interpretation, such as the young-Earth interpretation of Genesis 1, is also inerrant.

In closing

In his closing section, Thomas Purifoy quotes D. Martin Lloyd-Jones: “I have no gospel unless Genesis is history.” I can say, “Amen” to that.

A few years ago, I posted my “Creation Creed” here at GeoChristian.com:

As an old-Earth Christian,

I believe in a real creation from nothing by the triune God of the Bible,

And in a real Adam,

Who lived in a real garden,

And who committed a real first sin.

I believe that this sin had consequences:

spiritual and physical death for all of humanity.

I believe in Jesus Christ as our only savior,

And as the ruler and redeemer of all creation.

This creed is rooted in the historical events of Genesis.

I could say much more, of course, but have already written a far longer article than what I had hoped. This essay is not a comprehensive defense of any given old-Earth interpretation. Reformed Christians (as well as Christians from other traditions) who hold to the inerrancy of Scripture fall on both sides of the young-Earth/old-Earth debate. I hope that I have demonstrated that there are valid answers to the theological concerns that my young-Earth brothers and sisters in Christ have about the consequences of accepting an ancient creation.

Grace and Peace


Notes:

I have a great amount of respect for both Del Tackett (who also narrated The Truth Project series) and Thomas Purifoy. Thomas did a tremendous amount of research in preparation for producing Is Genesis History? He read weighty books from both sides of the debate (but it seems only got personal input from the young-Earth side; I could be wrong) I have had some correspondence with Thomas (Facebook messenger), and he has always been gracious and articulate. I just think he is wrong, and that young-Earth creationism is neither biblically necessary nor scientifically credible.

I am a member of a church in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), a theologically-conservative Reformed denomination that affirms biblical inerrancy (Del Tackett, the narrator of Is Genesis History?, is an elder within the PCA). The PCA as a denomination takes no official stand on the age of the Earth, and has produced an excellent document outlining both young-Earth and old-Earth interpretations of Genesis that are acceptable within the denomination. This document is the Report of the Creation Study Committee. I highly recommend this report!

It is refreshing that Thomas Purifoy acknowledges, “I realize that intelligent and godly Reformed Christians hold to [old-Earth] models of Earth history.” In the past, the list of old-Earth Reformed scholars and pastors included B.B. Warfield, Charles Spurgeon, and Francis Schaeffer. In the present, this list includes Justin Taylor, Michael Horton, and John Piper.

I have written a number of (mostly) short articles about Biblical topics regarding creation in my GeoScriptures series (a series I hope to add to). I will highlight a few of these articles:

I have written a number of articles about the age of the Earth and the extent and work of Noah’s flood on my blog as well. Take a look at the Best of the GeoChristian page. Here are a few highlights:

The ESV Study Bible is written from a Reformed perspective, and I have written a four-part series about the study notes. The study notes on Genesis, creation, and the flood include both young-Earth and old-Earth interpretations. One of the links I share most often with my young-Earth friends is the one about dinosaurs (actually the lack thereof) in the book of Job.

Another excellent article is PCA Geologists on the Antiquity of the Earth, written by eight geologists who are members of churches in the Reformed and theologically-conservative Presbyterian Church in America. The geological evidence presented by young-Earth creationists, such as in Is Genesis History? has failed to convince most Christian geologists, even those who hold to a high view of Scripture. One would think that if the arguments are even slightly compelling, that Christian geologists would jump in large numbers to the young-Earth side. They don’t.

Bible quotes are from the English Standard Version (ESV).

The Facebook discussion for this article is here.

Copyright © 2018, Kevin Nelstead, GeoChristian.com

An old-Earth Christian film review of Genesis: Paradise Lost

genesisOn two nights this past week (Nov 13 and 16, 2017), the young-Earth creationist (YEC) documentary Genesis: Paradise Lost was shown in select movie theaters across America. I spent $15 (the most I have ever spent for a movie) and sat in the upper corner of the theater where there was a little light that enabled me to scribble some notes. This movie included speakers from Answers in Genesis as well as other institutions, and will undoubtedly be a fixture in the YEC segment of Evangelical Christianity for quite a while.

The purpose of the film is to promote the young-Earth interpretation of Genesis 1-11, as stated on the movie’s web site:

Cutting-edge cinematography meets proven science and biblical accuracy to deliver GENESIS: PARADISE LOST, bringing the first book of the Bible to life in both 2D and 3D formats on the big screen. Stunning visual effects and field research invite audiences to explore the much-studied and debated opening chapters of the Bible. This highly-anticipated movie event will show in cinemas nationwide on Monday, November 13 at 7:00 p.m. local time.

GENESIS: PARADISE LOST will entertain and educate as an event for the whole family. The digital animation is interwoven with insightful commentary from accredited scientists and educators such as Dr. Charles Jackson and Dr. Georgia Purdom, and popular speakers such as Ken Ham and Ray Comfort. Cultural apologist Dr. Voddie Baucham, Jr.’s deep booming voice serves as Genesis’ “unseen narrator” whose vocal presence gives the visual images deeper meaning and life.

Summary

Genesis: Paradise Lost began with brief statements from various YEC scholars, such as:

  • “Science has been hijacked.”
  • “You either trust God, or trust man.”
  • “There are only two possibilities.”
  • “The big bang, millions of years, and evolution are all fairy tales.”
  • “If you can’t believe Genesis 1-11, then what part of the Bible can you trust?”

The bulk of the documentary alternated between narration of portions of Genesis 1-3 and short statements by various YEC scientists, Bible scholars, and teachers. The narration (slow and deep) was accompanied by computer animation of the various creative acts of God, such as the creation of light, the separation of land and water, the separation of waters above from waters below, the emergence of plants and animals, and the creation of Adam and Eve.

The style of the speakers was what I would call “flash bang grenade.” One speaker would say something, then another would say something related, and then another. For the most part, these were sound bites that those who are already YECs would agree with, rather than a presentation of any sort of sustained biblical or scientific argument. The segments flowed from one part of Genesis 1-3 to another, but the arguments still seemed to be somewhat disconnected. There was nothing in these sound-bite arguments that convinced me, as an old-Earth Christian, that the Bible requires a young Earth, or that science points to a young Earth.

The movie ended with a presentation of the gospel: The bad news of sin, and the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ.

Some Strong Points

YEC documentaries have come a long way from the days of Dr. Dino videos. The animations of the events of creation were all well done.

There were viewpoints expressed by the speakers that I agreed with. For example, I agree that naturalism is insufficient to explain the origin of the universe, and probably the origin of life as well.

I rejoice to hear the gospel presented, even when it is presented in a context that I believe is highly problematic (Philippians 1:18). The bad news is that humans are sinful and in rebellion against God. Because of Adam’s sin, and because of our own sin, we live in a world of misery and death rather than flourishing and life. God’s solution is Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead, that those who put their faith in him can be restored to what God intended for humanity back in the Garden of Eden. I agree with all of this, and none of it depends on Earth being only 6,000 years old.

Biblical and Scientific Problems

Though there were a few things in the movie I agreed with, I found many more areas of disagreement. Here are a few, starting with some Biblical problems with the movie, and then moving on to scientific difficulties:

It was dogmatically stated that Genesis 1 has the genre of historical narrative, and that the text must therefore be read “literally.” Many inerrancy-affirming, Evangelical Old Testament scholars would disagree that the genre of Genesis 1 is “historical narrative.” The problem is that many YEC scholars oversimplify the issue by presenting the only genre options as historical narrative or poetry, when in fact there are a number of genres in the Old Testament. Obviously, Genesis 1 is not poetry in the same sense that Psalms or Proverbs are poetry. But when reading Genesis 1, even in English, it is clear that Genesis 1 has patterns that are not present in standard Hebrew historical narrative passages, such as in most of the rest of Genesis, or the historical portions of Exodus through 2 Chronicles. Old Testament scholar C. John Collins calls the genre of Genesis 1:1-2:4 “exalted prose narrative,” indicating that there is something much higher going on in this section than in more ordinary narrative passages. The vocabulary is more exalted, there are analogies, and the structure of the opening passage of Genesis is perhaps unique in ancient Hebrew literature. If interpreters don’t get the genre of the passage correct—and YECs may indeed be getting it wrong—then it is likely that the final interpretation will also be wrong.

It was also stated that Jesus believed that Genesis is real history, with the implication that Jesus was endorsing the young-Earth interpretation. I agree that Jesus affirmed the historicity of Adam, and of Noah and the flood. As an old-Earth Christian, I therefore also believe in a real Adam and Eve in a real garden, committing a real sin, and in a real Noah who rode out a real flood in a real boat with real animals. None of this requires, however, a young Earth or a global flood.

The movie did not present the Garden of Eden as it is described in the Bible. Genesis 2 describes the garden as being at a specific location on Earth, identified as being in the Ancient Near East by the four rivers, including the Tigris and Euphrates. Genesis never describes the entire Earth as being the Garden of Eden. Instead, the garden seems to be a protected place (with Adam and Eve having a role in its protection), with the rest of the Earth being a wild place in need of subduing. Nevertheless, the film stated that the entire planet was lush from pole to pole; a paradise in its golden age in which animals could grow to enormous sizes. But this is not what the Bible says.

The movie stated that there are immense amounts of evidence for humans and dinosaurs living together. The speaker mentioned dinosaur-like petroglyphs, and references to dragons in the historical records of many cultures. In reality, I believe there is no convincing evidence that humans and dinosaurs ever lived together. YECs commonly point to the creatures Behemoth and Leviathan in Job 40-41 as proof that dinosaurs lived back in the second millennium B.C. Much more sober Bible commentators have better, more natural explanations for the identity of these creatures. A brief explanation of the identity of Behemoth and Leviathan can be found in the notes of the ESV Study Bible.

The presentation on radiometric dating wasn’t even all that consistent with the largest YEC research project on the topic, which was the RATE study. The film listed four assumptions that must be true for radiometric dating to work: 1) known initial concentrations of the parent and 2) daughter nuclides, 3) a constant decay rate, and 4) a closed system. So far so good. The RATE study concluded that, in most cases, assumptions 1, 2, and 4 can indeed be demonstrated, which was not mentioned in the movie. The RATE scientists, therefore, focused on questioning assumption #3, the decay rate. The documentary presented lutetium-176 (I think that was the nuclide) as an example of a radioactive nuclide for which the decay rate can be changed dramatically in a laboratory. What they didn’t tell you is that lutetium-176 has to be completely ionized in a plasma at a temperature of millions of degrees for this to happen. This is hardly applicable to the conditions on Earth during a flood or at any other time. The speakers in the film also didn’t mention that accelerating radioactive decay millions of times faster would release enough heat to boil Earth’s oceans and melt part of Earth’s crust as well.

It was also stated that the geologic column (Precambrian—Cambrian—Ordovician—Silurian—etc.) is the product of circular reasoning. This also is a common YEC argument: that rocks are dated by fossils, but that fossils are dated by rocks. This is a faulty argument, and confuses inductive reasoning with circular reasoning. The concept of the geologic column, as the better YECs acknowledge, reflects a real order that is observed in nature. Rock layers, in undisturbed areas, always occur in the order Cambrian—Ordovician—Silurian—Devonian…, not in some mixed-up order like Triassic—Ordovician—Jurassic—Silurian. Always. The geologic column is a product of inductive, not circular, reasoning.

I picked just six out of a couple dozen topics I could have chosen for critique. Note that I have spent more time on the Biblical problems with the movie than with the scientific problems. I believe that young-Earth creationism is not only faulty in terms of science, but a stretch in some ways of the text of Genesis.

Conclusion

The people involved in making Genesis: Paradise Lost, whether the producers and backers, or those who spoke in the film, are sincere Christians with a love for God’s Word, and a desire to see people come to faith in Christ. I commend them for their love and zeal.

I am convinced, however that the young-Earth interpretation is an over-reading of the text of Genesis, which actually forces many things into the Bible that are not there. There are a number of reasons to suspect that the intention of Moses was not to give us a geology lesson on the age of the Earth or the extent and work of Noah’s flood. In any case, Genesis says nothing about the origin of the igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks of Earth crust; volcanoes, canyons, glaciers, and many other geological wonders of God’s creation.

Furthermore, the scientific arguments presented in the movie, on topics such as radiometric dating, deposition of sediments, plate tectonics, comets, planetary surfaces, fossils, or fossilized poop, are just about all unsupportable. Most of these features cannot be explained in the young-Earth framework. For example, it was stated that it would impossible for things like worms or feces to be preserved in the fossil record by the slow deposition of sediments. I actually see no reason why an occasional worm or turd could not be preserved in certain depositional environments, but cannot imagine how worms and piles of excrement could survive being suspended in a watery slew of abrasive sediments in a catastrophic flood and then be deposited in just the right part of the geologic column (dinosaur poop in the Mesozoic; elephant poop in the Cenozoic) without being obliterated. Very few Christian geologists are convinced by YEC arguments, either for the age of the Earth, or the origin of the rocks of Earth’s crust.

I believe that the movie presents bad science based on a questionable interpretation of Genesis. Bad science, no matter how well-intended, is bad apologetics, and bad apologetics drives people away from Christianity.

Genesis: Paradise Lost is just part one of a two-part series. Part one focused on Genesis 1-3, so I assume part two will focus on Noah’s flood in Genesis 6-9.

Grace and Peace

———————————————————————-
Notes:

None of the quotes should be taken as direct quotes, as I was scribbling notes in a rather dim setting.

I haven’t written a review yet for the other 2017 YEC documentary, which was Is Genesis History? I would say that Is Genesis History? makes a much stronger case for young-Earth creationism, as it presents sustained arguments rather than a string of sound bites. Not that I was convinced by either the Biblical or the scientific arguments in Is Genesis History? either.

 

Review of Earth Science textbook in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith

earthscienceThere have been a number of positive reviews of my Earth Science textbook Earth Science: God’s World, Our Home, published by Novare Science and Math. One of the most comprehensive reviews is in the journal Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (Volume 69, Number 2, June 2017, pp. 111-113). The review was written by a middle school science teacher, who like me, had been forced to use secular textbooks in a Christian school because of the lack of credible options. Here are some highlights:

“The text is very readable, and it includes appropriate graphics to illustrate concepts and provide examples. Nelstead’s warm voice present in the text suggests a caring teacher behind the writing rather than the cold prose typical in many science textbooks.”

“Nelstead is clear throughout the text that he loves scripture and holds the perspective that the Bible reveals God as the caring, sovereign Creator. He emphasizes the perspective in this text as one that accepts “the strong evidence for an old universe” (p. xvi). However, Nelstead also encourages Christian educators to put the issues of the age-of-the-Earth debate behind them, stating, “Since Scripture and creation both come from the same God, they cannot be in conflict. And when both are rightly understood, they won’t be” (p. xvi). I recognize that not all Christian educators will agree with this perspective. However, many Christian educators teach with secular texts that embody a very different worldview than that of the teacher. The fact that Nelstead is upfront about his beliefs and how they influence the writing of the book is encouraging, and a model that Christian educators might follow.”

“I thoroughly enjoyed reading this text, and I believe Christians teaching science will find it a valuable resource. It may prove to be an excellent textbook choice for an earth science course for students in grades 7–9, and I would recommend that science teachers in Christian schools examine it for themselves for possible adoption. Christians involved in teaching science at other grade levels or in different types of schools would also benefit from this text as a resource to keep on the shelf. I believe that anyone interested in a thoughtful elaboration of Earth science that holds a biblical perspective as integral to that study would benefit from reading this book.”

Novare’s Earth Science is the textbook some Christian educators have been waiting for for decades. Buy it directly from Novare rather than from Amazon, which is over-priced.