Creationists (who may or may not be fundamentalists) start from the same premise that God is the Prime Mover, but they may differ on the manner and timing.  Old-earth creationists affirm that God took His time, while young-earth proponents believe God did His work pronto.  

Young-earth creationists are the most vocal, have been thus far the most successful at garnering sympathetic support, and have been hogging the press.  What escapes public attention is that there is a quiet group of creationists who are convinced we reside on an ancient planet.  From an old-earth creationist point of view, it is the extreme young earthers, the radical right, that are causing untold grief, bringing down scorn on the entire creationist movement.  

The Irony of Young-Earth Creationism  

C. S. Lewis in his book, Mere Christianity, said the devil “sends errors into the world in pairs of opposites.”  Lewis concludes:  

He (the devil) relies on your extra dislike of the one error to draw you gradually into the opposite one.  But do not be fooled.  We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors. ^[iii]  

Nowhere could Lewis be more on target than with this issue.  Evolution is being used as a scare tactic, a straw man, to draw gullible Christians into young-earth creationism.  The bitter irony about young-earth doctrine is that not only is the science dreadful, even the biblical exegesis is unsound.  

.      According to the young-earth view, the “days of creation” in Genesis 1 are interpreted as 24-hour time periods.  From nothing at all to the first humans, Adam and Eve, took less than one calendar week.  Claiming a “literal” rendering of the Genesis account, young-earth creationists posit a 6,000 to 10,000 year old universe with man, in the form of Adam, growing his garden, naming the animals, and having his operation before the paint was dry.  

Calling on the “Received Text,” Archbishop Ussher used the age of each patriarch at the birth of his son to derive a date for Adam, and the Creation itself six days earlier.  Thus, 4004 BC has been used as the starting point for the history of the universe among many young-earth proponents.  A few daring rebels have ignored the Archbishop, however, and have pushed the creation date out to a generous 10,000 years, thereby giving a minuscule amount of weight to the evidence from nature.  

There are no biological links between species in young-earth doctrine, and no death of any kind occurred in the world prior to Adam’s fall.  All the animals, and presumably insects, too, would have multiplied and filled the earth, not to mention your vegetable garden, without dying had it not been for Original Sin. ^[iv]  To further impress the biblical mandate upon nature, young-earth creationists call for a vapor canopy, and no rainfall, for the first 1,656 years.  Representatives of all the world’s animals, including dinosaurs, were loaded on Noah’s ark.  

Then a world-wide flood arranged the fossil record with complex fossils overlying simple varieties; distributed neat layers of incongruous sedimentary materials; gouged out the Grand Canyon over a mile deep; synthesized numerous ice ages; and even moved continents around the globe.  And, amazingly, it’s all derived from “inerrant” Scripture.  

Young-earth advocates disallow evolution primarily because they take away the time for it to happen.  As Duane Gish put it:  

It is this author’s belief that a sound Biblical exegesis requires the acceptance of the catastrophist-recent creation interpretation of earth history.  If this interpretation is accepted, the evolution model, of course, becomes inconceivable. ^[v]  

What escapes those who stand on such declarations is that the reverse is also authorized.  If you reject their interpretation of earth history, as nearly every scientist does, then evolution becomes conceivable; and since a “sound Biblical exegesis” is part of the same package, the Bible bears the brunt as the source of those shenanigans.

The technique employed by young-earth creationists is to stand on the Bible (literally, I think), and dredge up whatever supportive inconsistencies they can find in nature.  They then assert that the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientists are totally in error on earth dating.  With their claim that the earth and universe could be less than 10,000 years old, young-earth advocates try to shake the very foundations of our basic sciences.  

Although the term “creation science” could have meant advancing scientific evidence of a creation process authored by God, regrettably it does not.  The opportunity for that term to have an honorable meaning has been wasted.  Creation science is nothing more than the label pinned on young-earth creationists’ crude attempts to force fit the formation of the earth and universe into an absurd time frame demanded by their narrow biblical constraints.  

It is this attempt at literalism with blinders attached that is a paramount source of conflict.  In the young-earth view, the Lord spoke and the world appeared instantly, fully formed, ancient in appearance, and ready for human occupancy.  

For a variety of reasons, many Christian fundamentalists have embraced the young-earth position.  On the surface it appears to be literal, it’s certainly traditional, and it doesn’t allow for any of that evolution stuff whatsoever.  

Although most of us have at least some familiarity with the science of biology, geology, physics, and math, the “science of creation” probably would draw a few blank stares.  What is creation science?  The defunct 1981 Arkansas Act used the following definition:  

(a) ‘Creation-science’ means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences.  Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate (1) Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing; (2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism; (3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals; (4) Separate ancestry for man and apes; (5) Explanation of the earth’s geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and (6) A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds.  

Few creationists would have any trouble with creation science had the above definition been limited to the first sentence.  Taken in its entirety, the definition deteriorates into the controversial aspects of young earth and flood geology.  Therefore, the term “creation science” excludes all creationists who dare to entertain the possibility that our Creator might have used a longer time to bring all this about.

The contention that the world is young, but only looks old, is totally bereft of earthly or heavenly evidence.  Not a shred of credible data from nature has yet been uncovered to support young-earth claims.  No radioactive rock has yet been discovered containing so small an amount of decay element that it could be dated to such a young age.  Not one fossil bone has been found in Precambrian sedimentary rock.  No dinosaur bones have been uncovered in conjunction with human remains, and so forth.  

What young-earth proponents have dredged up and presented as supporting evidence has demonstrated either an ignorance of, or a disregard for, the readily available and conclusive evidence that this old planet has been around for billions of years.  Undaunted by the absence of data to support young-earth doctrine, proponents make their points by sowing seeds of doubt.  They search for whatever anomalies or inconsistencies they can find in nature in an effort to poke holes in the universally accepted belief in an ancient earth.  

The method employed to gain followers is simple.  First, young-earth leaders wrap themselves in Scripture.  By taking what appears to be a literal Bible interpretation, they gather the support of trusting believers.  Next, young-earth proponents illuminate discrepancies in evolution.  Chapter 3 of this book shows that the theory of evolution has problems of its own, making it an excellent target.  Then they trot out paltry evidence, which holds not a drop of water, but can sound credible to the uninformed.  Lastly, they travel about, sell books, and solicit donations to further advance their ministry of misinformation.  

Creationist Myths  

Some of the arguments used to promote young-earth views are as follows:  

The Young Moon  

In 1960, Hans Petterson wished to calculate the amount of space dust falling on the earth.  After collecting samples from a mountain top in Hawaii, he analyzed the nickel content, and deduced that 14 million tons of dust fall on the earth each year.  Supposedly, a similar amount was falling on the moon.  

According to creationist literature, this figure extrapolated for five billion years would have put a layer of dust on the moon’s surface of about 54 feet. ^[vi]  That much dust lying on the surface could have made for a hazardous moon landing, and NASA scientists were concerned about that.  

When Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon in 1969, they extracted a core sample of about five inches.  Young-earth proponents were eager to point to this as “proof” that the moon, and the earth by inference, were young. ^[vii]  Subsequent measurements of the moon’s surface on the Apollo 17 mission got a seismic reading of the moon’s regolith varying from 20 to 120 feet.  The regolith is a complicated surface containing dust, ash, and moon rocks.  The amount of meteoritic material in the lunar soil varies from about 1.5% to 10%. ^[viii]  

Direct reading of outer space dust done by satellites, coupled with Surveyor 3 findings of micrometeorite bombardment impacting on the moon itself, demonstrated that Petterson’s initial rudimentary calculations weren’t even close.  Van Till reports:  

By best current estimates, then, the accumulation of meteoritic dust on the moon would contribute a layer less than one centimeter thick in four billion years. ^[ix]  

In other words, the amount of dust found on the moon was about right for a 4.5 billion year exposure.  As recently as 1987, creationist literature continued to flaunt their long discredited young moon evidence. ^[x]  

The Incredible Shrinking Sun  

The contention here is that the sun is shrinking at such a rapid rate that only a scant 20 million years ago the sun’s surface would have been touching the earth’s surface! ^[xi]  This statistic was based on a 1979 report by John Eddy and Aram Boornazian who deduced the shrinkage of the sun’s surface at the linear rate of 5 feet per hour from computing the time required for the sun to cross the celestial meridian at noon.  

The Eddy-Boornazian data was challenged from the beginning.  For one thing, the sun is known to oscillate in size, and this has been borne out from various tests.  In 1980, Irwin Shapiro used Mercury transit rates across the sun’s surface, and came up with figures about one-seventh the value computed by Eddy and Boornazian.  

In 1984, John Eddy teamed up with Claus Frohlich and published another startling revelation.  From 1967 to 1980, the sun actually increased in size at the linear rate of 8 feet per hour! ^[xii]  Thanks to the marvels of science, we now know that 20 million years ago the sun was the size of a mustard seed!  

This example is typical of the kind of slapdash science creation “scientists” will use to prove whatever they need to prove that might bolster their case.  The shrinking sun argument used in creationist literature continued to be published as recently as 1987 - three years after Eddy co-published data showing exactly the opposite.  

The Magnetic Earth  

We all know that the earth has a magnetic field around it.  When I was an Air Force navigator, we relied on “magnetic north” for compass bearings.  The magnetic north pole differs from true north by varying degrees depending on where you are on the earth’s surface since they are not located at the same place.  

The point young-earth creationists make is that the magnetic field is decaying, getting weaker.  This implies that in the past it was stronger.  If we could go back in time, we would see an increasingly stronger magnetic field.  

According to their statistics, 10,000 years ago the earth’s magnetic field would have been “as strong as the magnetic field in a magnetic star.”  “Surely our earth never had a magnetic field stronger than a star,” they say.  “That would limit the age of the earth to 10,000 years...” ^[xiii]   (Really, I’m not making this stuff up.)  

Their supporting evidence comes from young-earth advocate, Dr. Thomas Barnes.  In 1973, he took 150 years worth of data showing a gradual decay in the magnetic field.  Barnes then plotted an exponential curve to the data points.  The Barnes curve showed the magnetic field to be not just decreasing, but decreasing at an increasing rate.  He then took his 150 years worth of data and extrapolated it to 20,000 BC!  Barnes published the results, but not the data.  

Dr. S. G. Brush did publish the data to which he plotted a conventional straight line through the data points.  The difference this made is that the same magnetic strength Barnes achieved at 20,000 BC with his curve, took over 100 million years with a straight line. ^[xiv]  In essence, Barnes “cooked” the original data to concoct a result compatible with his beliefs.  

Miscalculating the rate of magnetic decay was only part of the error.  What we find in reality is that the earth’s magnetic field has not decayed nonstop for billions of years.  It has fluctuated through time in sine wave fashion.  Core samples of igneous rocks taken from the earth’s surface show that the earth’s magnetic field has gone through numerous reversals, swapping magnetic north and south poles periodically throughout the earth’s long past. ^[xv]

Please notice in the three previous examples that creation “scientists” will use strictly uniformitarian principles to support their claims.  They take a rate, extrapolate that rate into the past, and then deduce that the resultant figure cannot possibly be true, and therefore, the earth must be young.  

Now, note what they say about geologists’ methods.  In The Genesis Record, Morris makes a point about the flood ordering the fossil sequence found in sedimentary rocks.  He then says:  

Man’s perverse and depraved nature has somehow distorted both into a system of evolution and uniformity. ^[xvi]  

“Uniformity” can be defined as a projected continuity.  It is the assumption that the rates and processes we see today are the same as in the past.  This is simply the most conservative stance you could take.  The alternative is to assume that something (who knows what?) caused the rates or processes to change.  Since we would not know whether the rates or processes changed up or down, the “no change” assumption is as middle-of-the-road as you can get.  

The precautions with taking a uniformitarian approach are that you must have a considerable number of established data points, and that you not try to extrapolate too far.  For example, on one day in a particular city the maximum temperature was 72 degrees Fahrenheit, the next day it was 67 degrees.  An erroneous uniformitarian assumption would project that a year from now we will be in another ice age, or that last year we were living in an inferno.  

The important thing to remember, though, is that what makes uniformity inherently good or bad, from a young earth creationist’s point of view, is directly dependent on who uses it.  If they use it - it’s good; if evolutionists use it - it’s bad!  

Where is the Salt?

Another young-earth argument is that not enough salt or minerals are in the bottom of the oceans. Here young-earth creationists base their assumptions on the supposition that if the earth was old, oceans would be 4.6 billion year-old stagnant basins. They ignore the universally-accepted documentation of sea floor spreading and plate tectonics that depict the earth as a vibrant and living surface.

In Science Held Hostage, Van Till makes this point:

In 1954 Goldschmidt provided data and discussion supporting the conclusion that the dissolved material in ocean water is in an equilibrium state, being added and removed at equal rates. ^[xvii]  Chemical Oceanography, published in 1965 and revised in 1975, includes extensive discussions of the processes by which elements are removed from ocean water, although those parts of the work appear to have been disregarded by the young-earth advocates who quote from this book in Scientific Creationism and elsewhere ^[xviii]  

Misguided Science  

The previously cited examples are merely representative of what young-earth creationists try to foist off as “science.”  The list goes on.  In the 1982 McLean vs. Arkansas Board of Education decision, Judge William Overton made this telling comment:  

While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology used as scientific, if they start with a conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation. ^[xix]  

Hugh Ross in his book The Fingerprint of God spoke of “scientific creationists” as being “sadly misguided and misguiding many whose science education and biblical training are inadequate to aid them in evaluation.”  Ross identified four key problems with young-earth arguments.  They involve (1) faulty assumptions; (2) faulty data; (3) misapplication of principles, laws, and equations; and (4) ignorance of mitigating evidence. ^[xx]  

So, you might ask, why not reach out to those dear ones in brotherly love, and show them gently the abundant evidence for an old earth?  If we just present all the data, they will see the errors of their ways and come to enlightenment.  Right?  Try it!  

If you tell them about the speed of light and the billions of light years between earth and distant galaxies, they will tell you the speed of light may have changed.  Demonstrate that radiometric dating confirms the ages of rocks to billions of years, and they respond there is no way to know how much decay element God put in when He created the earth in the first place.  

Explain that it takes millions of years for caves to form stalactites and massive columns, and they will contend there are stalactites under the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C.  Show young earthers 150 million years of dinosaur history, and you will learn about the angler in South Africa who landed a coelacanth in 1938. ^[xxi]  

Talk about the layers worn by water erosion in the red wall of the Grand Canyon where those particular layers were once on the earth’s surface, and prepare to hear that sub-aqueous water seepage could have caused it.  

Point out that there are layers of salt evaporite deposits, hundreds of feet thick, well beneath the earth’s surface, covered by sedimentary rock they say was laid down by the flood, and they will respond that underground volcanoes may have boiled the water beneath the earth’s surface, evaporating the salt out of the sea water in the midst of a raging, global deluge.  

Get the pattern?  No matter what evidence, or what bit of data, or what undeniable fact is presented proving the earth is old - and any answer, no matter how incongruous, or how cockamamie, or how illogical, will suffice.  And they call it creation science?  

Old Testament Evidence for an Old Earth  

Turning away from general revelation, let us look at special revelation.  If an earth of great age is mandated by the evidence from nature, then the inspired Scriptures ought to agree.  Rest assured, they do.  

In Job 15:1, Eliphaz asked Job, “Wast thou made before the hills?”  Does it seem reasonable that Eliphaz would have used this question of digging sarcasm had he thought the age of the hills and the age of man were virtually the same, varying by a scant five days?  

The intent of Eliphaz in Job is confirmed by Habakkuk 3:6.  The mountains are described as “everlasting,” the hills are “perpetual.”  The Hebrew words ‘ad and ‘owlam mean “long duration,” “ancient,” “forever,” and “continuous existence.”  

Does the Bible comment on the earth-age dispute?  Consider Ecclesiastes 1:10: “Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.”  Could “any thing” include an earth, for example?  

Sin and Death  

Young-earth creationists maintain the Bible prohibits death, even in the animal world, until Adam commits Original Sin.  Genesis 3:17b and Romans 8:22 are summoned for oblique support, but essentially this idea of no death in the animal kingdom before Adam hinges on their interpretation of about one half of one verse in Romans.  

Citing Romans 5:12, Morris explains that death “entered into the world” only when sin came by man.  And, he continues:  

... it is as obvious as anything could be that the fossil record now found in the sedimentary rocks of the earth’s crust could only have been formed sometime after man sinned. ^[xxii]

Is that what the Bible says?  All the world’s predator animals had to wait for sin before they could put their claws and fangs into tasty red meat?  Can you envision black clouds of hungry buzzards egging Eve on?  Does that sound plausible?  

Let us get some perspective.  What did Paul say in Romans?  “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin ...” (Rom. 5:12a).  Does this mean Adam’s sin caused death in the animal world too?  Did sin inflict both man and animals in the eyes of Paul?  

There are at least two reasons that death was not dealt to the animal world through Adam’s fall.  First, the fossil record is replete with over half a billion years worth of animal death.  That predates Adam by a wide margin.  The second reason is that animals do not belong in the same “world” as man, attested to by the Bible writers themselves.  

Notice that Morris did not use the entire verse.  He stopped in mid-sentence, in fact.  This is what follows the semi-colon.  Romans 5:12b: “and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.”  So the Bible tells us, “as obvious as anything could be,” who or what is affected by Adam’s sin - men, not animals.  

Additional clarification can be found in the following verse.  Romans 5:13: “For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.”  Who was under the law, men or animals?  Did animals tithe, fast, celebrate feasts, honor the sabbath, keep the commandments, or offer up unblemished sacrifices?  

In Romans 4:13: “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.”  Were animals “through the righteousness of faith” to be joint heirs of the world along with the descendants of Abraham?  

Had Adam’s sin carried a death sentence for the animal world as well, those concerned critters could take heart with I Corinthians 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”  So, if young-earth proponents are right, keep stocking those pet cemeteries, there’s a new day a-comin’.  The trumpet will blow, and millions of years worth of animal life will burst forth!  

Putting frivolity aside, Scripture forbids such a ludicrous interpretation of Romans 5:12.  Adam’s sin of disobedience caused death unto all his generations.  In addition, the death referred to in this passage more probably refers to spiritual death than physical death.  With continued access to the tree of life, Adam would have lived forever despite Original Sin, according to Genesis 3:22.  

Anyone entertaining the slightest, fleeting thought of signing on to young-earth doctrine should weigh heavily the words of a certain apostle: “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies ...” (II Pet. 2:1).  

In II Peter 3:3-8, the apostle warns of “scoffers,” and affirms the “heavens were of old,” and “that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years.”  

Ignoring the words of the apostle, young-earth creationists scoff at the overwhelming evidence of earth antiquity, insist the earth and heavens are young, and assert that one day is with the Lord as 24 hours!  

The Appearance of Age  

When they come under a reasoned attack, there is yet another rationalization young-earth advocates will employ.  Flinching under the weight of old-earth evidence, they offer an alternate explanation.  The world is young, they claim, but was created to look old.  

In 1857, Phillip Gosse wrote Omphalos (navel), a book advocating that God created false records in nature to date his recent creation artificially.  Just as Adam must have been created an adult, Gosse argued, the Creator designed the earth to look old.  The earth would be young, but would have the “appearance of age.”  

The appearance of age argument is similarily flawed, just like the rest of the young-earth argument.  Had Adam been aged artificially in the same sense that the universe and earth bear the undeniable stamp of antiquity, a physical exam would have revealed worn dentition, liver spots, scar tissue, callouses, blood cholesterol, wrinkles, and all the other physical signs of an aging adult.  

The notion that the universe was brought about with an apparent age, or that it looks old but is really young, crumbles under its own weight.  How ironic it would have been for God to have commanded us, “Thou shalt not bear false witness,” and have expected us to adhere to a criterion that He would have violated from the very beginning.  

From the book of Romans we find we are held accountable by the evidence of nature.  “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:1:20).  Had an artificially-dated planet been palmed off on us by a clever sleight-of-hand artist we would not be without excuse, we’d have a great excuse!  

Inherent with the appearance of age argument is a classic “Catch-22.” ^[xxiii]  If the world is old in complete agreement with the way it looks, then why would God give us a book telling us it is young?  And if the world is young, then it had to be manufactured deliberately and cleverly to look old.  

Thus, the orthodoxy of young-earth creationism poses an insane dilemma; if the world is old, God would be a fibber, and if young, He would be a counterfeiter!  Taking young-earth dogma to its conclusion, if we could not trust God to give us a true history of the world we live in, how could we trust Him to give us true history and true prophecy in His Book?  A god who could falsify nature might falsify a resurrection!  

Ironically, these implied allegations raised by those who profess to be believers call God’s very credibility into question.  True words demand true works.  “For the word of the Lord is right and all his works are done in truth” (Psa. 33:4).  

I can think of only one reason that the earth would look old, and that would be so that when we observe it, we think it is old.  If God wants us to think that, then that is what we should think.  I would rather believe it looks old because it is old.  But either way, we should continue to think that way, since that is what He expects.  And if I found any evidence for a young earth, He could trust me not to blab about it.  If God had created the earth recently, but wanted to make it look old, the last thing I would do is bring up contrary evidence to point out oversights.  

For example, the moon rocks had just the right amount of decay element in the rock samples astronauts brought back to give consistent dates in the billions of years, but, oh no, He must have forgotten to put enough dust on the moon to jibe with the radioactive dates!  What must He have been thinking of?  All of that contrived young-earth evidence, if true, would call for a bumbling creator!  

The perplexing theme of young-earth creationism is not that God made the earth with the appearance of age.  Rather, the inferred message is that God made a clever attempt to create an old-appearing earth, but thanks to the efforts of those hard-working researchers, they have uncovered His inconsistencies.  So, first they accuse Him of deception, and then they assert He wasn’t good at it!  What a confused message that is.  

A Lost Cause  

The theory of evolution and its atheistic bent may have been the initial impetus for young-earth creationism, but once the course was set, no revelations of science have generated even the slightest changes.  Young-earth proponents will use whatever argument, spurious or otherwise, if it will advance their cause.  

The case for evolution does have a principal requirement.  Long periods of time are needed for species to evolve from simple to more complex life forms.  If millions of years were available then evolution could have happened.  If the time is denied, then gradual evolution would be impossible, and only sudden creation will work.  Defeating evolution at any cost appears to have been the motive, but now the helmsman has been swept overboard, vested interests have been established, and many are caught up in perpetuating a wayward “ministry.”

The tragic enigma is this: when authors who purport to be Bible scholars put forth an erroneous theory they claim is based on “inerrant” Scripture, it is Bible credibility that suffers - Bible error is the conclusion.  The lamentable effect is for the baby of biblical truth to be tossed out with the bath water of young-earth creationism.  

Christians Caught in the Web  

In light of scriptural limitations, coupled with voluminous scientific data which is totally one sided, the question is: Why have so many conservative Christians adopted young-earth creationism?  The answer lies in this: while young-earth creationists can be debunked for using flawed logic in this particular area, in other areas of Christian doctrine in general their theology is quite sound.  This makes the poisoned pill easier to swallow for eager, well-intentioned evangelicals, hungry for the Word, and angered by the popularity of evolutionism.  

The fallacy of young-earth doctrine would be a lot easier to detect if it were not encapsulated in what is otherwise commonly accepted hermeneutics.  Ask any major league pitcher, and he will tell you the fast ball sets up the curve.  If God’s truth is “sharper than any two-edged sword” (Heb. 4:12), then perhaps a falsehood is deadlier than a double-pointed pitchfork.  One point wounds evangelicals, impeding their effectiveness as soul winners.  The other point pierces the hearts of unbelievers in their rejection of the message delivered by unreliable messengers.