Our goal is to provide a constructive alternative to this unhelpful message. Young , was a very conservative Presbyterian biblical scholar.
Rabbitt History of Geology Award in Ralph Stearley is professor of geology at Calvin College, where he has taught since A paleontologist with broad interests in the history of life and in biogeography, he received his Ph.
His published research has included work on marine invertebrate ecology and paleoecology in the northern Gulf of California; fluvial taphonomy ; the systematics and evolution of salmonid fishes ; Pleistocene mammalian biogeography; and zooarchaeology of fish remains from sites in Michigan and New Mexico.
In this following two sections, Young and Stearley survey Christian responses to geology in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, stressing the role of Seventh-day Adventists and Missouri Synod Lutherans in forging the young-earth creationist views that are part and parcel of the Ark Encounter. Despite the inexorable accumulation of evidence supporting the idea that the Earth is far in excess of 6, years old, there were predictable antagonistic responses to the developing trends.
In the early nineteenth century, a torrent of books and pamphlets designed to uphold the traditional point of view on the age and history of the world, including a global Deluge, were published. By the latter half of the century, relatively few hostile denunciations of geology or published defenses of Flood geology appeared. Also significant were the teachings of Ellen Gould White , the founder of Seventh-day Adventism, who claimed to have visions from God about the creation of the world in six literal days as well as of a global Deluge that buried all life and produced the fossils.
A growing number of orthodox evangelical Christian writers, including geologists, preachers, biblical scholars and theologians, accepted and accommodated their thinking to the mounting evidence for terrestrial antiquity. In response, they began to develop a variety of strategies purporting to show how the biblical data were consistent with the findings of geology. These individuals continued to insist on the inspiration of the Bible and refused to call Genesis a myth in order to explain difficulties.
It was, however, accepted that the traditional exegesis of Genesis 1 was not the only one that adequately satisfied the biblical data. In particular, several geologists in the nineteenth century were outspoken Christians who were concerned to uphold Scripture. They had no intention of denying the Christian faith. The nineteenth century thus became an age of harmonization, a time when orthodox evangelical theologians and scientists generally adopted either the restitution or the day-age interpretation of Genesis 1.
An astonishing and perplexing aspect of the twentieth-century scene was the remarkable, unabated resurgence of belief among many Christians in the sciences in the crucial geologic role of the biblical Flood and in the idea that the Earth is only a few thousands of years old—and this in the face of increasing geologic and astronomical evidence for the vast antiquity of the Earth and the universe.
The Flood geology movement in America has steadily gathered momentum throughout the twentieth century. Ronald Numbers , a historian of science at the University of Wisconsin and a former Seventh-day Adventist, has shown that much of the impetus for the resurgence of Flood geology can be traced to the influence of Seventh-day Adventist founder Ellen Gould White Instances are known where rock masses have been transported more than kilometers along thrust surfaces.
These books by Byron Nelson, a veteran of World War One who became a Lutheran minister, make an interesting combination. What is there in the Christian religion against it?
What doctrine is in any way changed? Six thousand or sixty thousand or six hundred thousand years affect the fundamental situation set forth by the message of the Gospel not a whit. His grandson, philosopher of biology Paul Nelson, is both a young-earth creationist and a prominent advocate of Intelligent Design. In contemporary America there now exists a vigorous movement within the evangelical wing of the church that favors recent creation and Flood geology.
This movement has very strong transdenomenational support among Christians who are not engaged in scientific endeavor. Outside of Seventh-day Adventist circles, young-Earth and Flood geology has especially shown considerable popularity among conservative Lutherans. In , a Lutheran pastor, Byron Nelson , wrote an interesting and very sympathetic history of the flood theory, The Deluge Story in Stone. The movement received its strongest impetus, however, with the publication in of The Genesis Flood by John C.
Morris , then a professor of hydraulic engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and later the founder and president of the Institute for Creation Research in El Cajon, California.
There followed a long list of writings devoted to the Flood and to the young-Earth theory, including numerous books by Henry Morris, including Science, Scripture, and the Young Earth , a critique of the first edition of Christianity and the Age of the Earth Also of great significance was the formation of creation-oriented organizations. ICR was founded in by Henry Morris as the research arm of Christian Heritage College now San Diego Christian College , but since it has been an autonomous graduate school devoted to the discovery of scientific support for a young Earth, a global Flood and other catastrophic interpretations of geology, and nonevolutionary explanations of the origins of organisms.
Ronald Numbers has pointed out that one-third of the original charter membership came from the denomination, including biologists Walter Lammerts , Wilbert Rusch , John Klotz and Paul Zimmerman [ The Creationists , p. Since , the Creation Research Society has published a journal devoted to the espousal of catastrophism, Flood geology and a young Earth. Creationists have made extensive use of tracts, pamphlets, and other small print publications for more than century. Perhaps no one was more heavily invested in anti-evolution pamphlets than Harry Rimmer , but many others have written them too, including the famous Baptist evangelist John R.
For decades, Rice advised revivalists to preach against evolution—not to mention dancing, fraternal lodges, movies, cults, liquor, and adultery. Today I frequently encounter Chick tracts , especially the one shown here, Big Daddy? The young-Earth creationist movement has made inroads into the homeschooling movement, and curricular materials commonly endorse young-Earth claims. Young-Earth creationism is frequently featured on Christian radio and television programs. Repeated efforts, almost inevitably unsuccessful, have been made by advocates of a young Earth to introduce their brand of creationism into public school instruction.
District Judge Overton in the case of McClean v. A similar act favorable to creationism was adopted in Louisiana and then struck down in by the U. Supreme Court in the case of Edwards v. A significant development within the creationist movement was the establishment of the International Conference on Creationism held every fourth year in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The movement has also been encouraged by the entrance of a handful of younger scholars with doctoral degrees in geology, a serious lack in the early days of creationism.
The presence within the Flood geology movement of people with doctoral degrees like Leonard Brand , Arthur Chadwick , Stephen Austin , Kurt Wise , Andrew Snelling, Elaine Kennedy and Marcus Ross has not only lent greater scientific sophistication to the Flood geology movement but also has served as an internal check on some of the more egregious geologic errors in the writing of enthusiastic but ill-informed creationists.
The publications of some of the more recent advocates of Flood geology such as Ariel Roth and Leonard Brand also have a much more irenic and moderate tone that provides a welcome contrast to the sarcastic, sometimes disrespectful tone and unwarrantedly dogmatic pronouncements of earlier creationists.
Young-Earth creationists have, of course, continued to issue books and articles designed to convince people of the truth of a young Earth. Despite the facts that young-Earth creationism has become considerably more sophisticated and that some of its proponents are much more geologically knowledgeable than were earlier advocates like Price or Morris, the claims advanced in favor of a young Earth or of Flood geology remain unacceptable to the scientific community. Thus their claims should also be unacceptable within the church, which, of all places ought to be committed to truth and reality—for the simple reason that the young-Earth creationist claims lack scientific credibility.
They neither discredit evidence for an old Earth nor compel acceptance of a young Earth or a global Flood. A factor contributing to the remarkably widespread acceptance of young-Earth creationism since the nineteenth century is the strong link geology has acquired with the theory of biological evolution by natural selection, extending not only to lower animals and plants but to the human race as well.
As a result of such popularizations, the scientific theory of biological development has become so closely identified with a materialistic worldview in the minds of many Christians, including young-Earth creationists, that they throw out the baby with the bathwater, calling not merely for the repudiation of materialism but also for the rejection of evolution as a legitimate scientific theory. The failure to give adequate recognition to the distinction between the scientific theory of biological evolution and the philosophy of materialistic evolutionism characterizes such works as Nancy Pearcey , Total Truth , Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey, How Now Shall We Live?
Johnson , Darwin on Trial Some of them are also more willing to work with other opponents of evolution who do not accept their young-earth views. For example, YEC geologist Marcus Ross collaborated with ID authors on a paper about the Cambrian explosion, which posited a design event of animal groups during the Cambrian and assumed an old-Earth timescale. Image Source: EvolutionNews. Without question, any purely materialistic philosophy is hostile to Christianity and ought to be opposed by Christians.
Christians should not, however, attempt to disprove a materialistic evolutionary theory by discrediting the antiquity of the Earth. Evolutionary materialism and the antiquity of the Earth are two distinct issues. If the vast antiquity of the Earth is amply demonstrated, one must still evaluate the data and theory of evolution on their own scientific merits.
By way of example, Hugh Ross , an astrophysicist, and C. John Collins , an Old Testament theologian, are both enthusiastic advocates of an old Earth who, nevertheless, ardently oppose biological evolution.
To summarize, in the face of the facts that the scientific community was virtually unanimous in accepting the vast antiquity of the Earth throughout the twentieth century right up to the present, and the geologic and astronomical evidence for such antiquity has continued to accumulate, significant segments of the Christian church have regressed by welcoming scientifically discredited ideas that include Flood geology and a very young Earth. For whatever reasons, acceptance of scientific findings prevails among academic theologians and the vast majority of Christian geologists, whereas acceptance of young-Earth creationism, anti-evolutionism and Flood geology prevails among pastors and lay Christians.
Moreover, an astonishing number of Christian physicians and engineers are quite enthusiastic in their support of these discredited theories. This state of affairs, in our judgment, reflects lack of appropriate geologic knowledge coupled with existence of tendencies to read Scripture in overly literalistic ways that fail to take into account the ancient Near Eastern cultural background of much Scripture and the primary pedagogical concern of the Bible.
Our aim is to challenge readers, whether Christian or not, to see the weaknesses in a literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1 and to appreciate the force of divinely established geologic evidence for an extremely ancient Earth.
In the previous section, the authors discussed creationist organizations and critiqued evolutionary materialism. The Garden of Eden poses other problems with the young earth model that appearance of age supposedly explains. If God created plants and animals within the same six day period as He created Adam and Eve, then He must have created the plants and animals in a fully grown state so that they could serve as a food source.
In other words, according to the appearance of age theory, God must have created plants that had every appearance of having fully germinated, when in fact they had not. Also, in order to support plant and animal life the soil must be full of nutrients that normally take many years to form.
Therefore God must have created the Garden of Eden with an apparent but nonexistent history in order for it to support plant and animal life.
Finally, one of the most compelling arguments for an old earth is radiometric dating. Yet, instead of being baffled by rocks showing evidence of billions of years of radioactive decay, some creationists claim that this is just another instance of creation being given the appearance of significant age. According to this theory, God could have created radioactive elements and their daughter products in ratios such that they gave the appearance that they had been decaying for an extremely long time when in fact they had not had time to decay at all.
The result of all this to a creationist is that every piece of scientific evidence supporting an old earth can be explained away by saying that God simply created it to appear old. In this way, the appearance of age argument can be very useful for creationists.
Several leading creationists have published books supporting a young earth which to some degree use the appearance of age argument. The history of using this argument in support of a young earth dates back at least as far as the middle of the nineteenth century to Philip Henry Gosse.
Gosse used appearance of age to respond to scientists touting the geologic and fossil record. He also published a book titled Omphalos the Greek word for navel after his curious theory that Adam had a navel despite never having a mother or therefore an umbilical cord. Gosse used this theory to explain how God made creation with evidence of a false history Numbers, Gosse's theories regarding the appearance of age have been quite controversial, not only among scientists but also among creationists.
Many creationists believe that Gosse took the appearance of age too far and have either rejected his theory or modified it to better suit their needs. One such creationist who has modified Gosse's theories on appearance of age is John C. In he and fellow creationist Henry M. Morris published the book The Genesis Flood. In this book they claimed that since God created the earth in six literal days, it was necessary for Him to create it with "an appearance of being 'old' when it was still new" Whitcomb and Morris Young Earth Creationists believe that the origin of the earth, the universe, and various forms of life, etc.
The doctrine of special creation involves direct divine intervention, suspending the laws of nature to achieve a given result. This doctrine contrasts with a view common among theistic evolutionists that God can work through natural laws.
Young Earth Creationists are among the more organized creationist movements. Two of the largest groups, Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research produce magazines, websites, books, and videos for general audiences as well as publish journals which report on so-called "creation science".
In May of , Answers in Genesis opened a multi-million dollar Creation Museum in Kentucky, aimed at attracting a wide public audience. YEC writings tend to focus on attempting to explain why much of modern science cannot be correct. For example, Young Earth Creationists spend considerable effort trying to explain why the earth cannot be 4.
They also make arguments for the feasibility of Noah's ark and for the occurrence of a single worldwide flood within the last 5, years. A major YEC endeavor is to explain how the 15 million or more species alive today could have evolved from a much smaller number of "kinds" which they believe were created in Genesis. This project is sometimes referred to as baraminology, named after the Hebrew word min , which is traditionally translated as "after its kind," in passages like "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.
This is not the way those terms are used by the scientific community. Arkansas decision, and again in 's Edwards v.
For me, young-earth creationism was a happy experience. My degree was not in science and I had left my science-driven sense of awe behind years before.
It brought my sense of awe front and centre into my faith again. But there was a downside to all this enthusiasm. Secondly, my evangelism no longer started with Jesus but with Genesis, and my literalistic interpretation of its first two chapters devastated my ability to evangelise effectively.
I became such an expert in young-earth creationist theology and science that it turned into a wrecking ball for my faith. When my new brother in law, who was a theistic evolutionist and a science major, nailed me in a discussion on the origins of DNA, the hollowness of my position was suddenly clear. My experience of losing a discussion that I felt I should have won began the process of rethinking what I really believed.
Young-earth creationism had simply failed every empirical test that mainstream science demands. This is why there are no serious peer-reviewed creationist papers, and no scientists studying young-earth creationism in any secular research centre in the world.
The same can be said for its theology. The raqiya therefore could not be solid, but must simply refer to the atmosphere. Yet the cosmology of a solid dome was a common phenomenological belief shared by all ancient near-eastern people, not just the Israelites. Moreover, its solid state is described by other prophets, not just the writer of Genesis such as Job who describes the firmament as a dome made of lead , and Ezekiel who had a vision of the firmament being made of sapphire stone I once nodded vigorously when Ken Ham said that even if science was completely against him, he would still believe in Genesis as it was written by God.
Yet we can put rockets into space and there is no raqiya made of lead or sapphire to be found.
0コメント