Today among conservative evangelicals there is a concerted effort to defend the “biblical” position that the earth is young. Growing up in fundamentalist Baptist circles, I like many others, simply assumed this was the Bible’s clear teaching. I also assumed that this was the historic position of the church.
There are plenty of good arguments for young earth creationism (YEC) as it is known today. These arguments have persuaded a majority of evangelicals that this is the Bible’s teaching and the position to stand for.
But has support for a young-earth position always been this widespread? Judging from the last 200 years, the answer appears to be a decided no. Today, that support is weakening and authors Kenneth D. Keathley and Mark F. Rooker have recently given us a book to help evangelical Christians sort through this question and the wider creation-evolution controversy. In their book, 40 Questions about Creation and Evolution, Keathley and Rooker point out that the young earth position took center stage only in the last 50 years.
Before I provide an excerpt with their comments, I do want to speak briefly about this helpful book. I appreciate the openness each author has in carefully laying out the evidence (good and bad) for the various positions that evangelicals hold. One of the authors favors young earth creationism, and another leans toward the old earth view. But both take pains to speak charitably of the other positions and honestly about the difficulties of his own view. Their irenic candor and careful grappling with the major positions, is what makes this book such a joy to read. A full review of this book will come later, but for now, I wanted to offer this excerpt for your reading and possible discussion.
Here is an excerpt related to the origins of today’s young-earth creationism. I should note that unlike some other works which point out the history behind the YEC position, this book does not malign that view and in pointing out the history it does, is not using the “guilt by association” tactic either.
The Rise of Young-Earth Creationism
As we noted earlier, most Christians, including evangelicals, accepted the view that the universe was millions and perhaps billions of years old. [My comment: he is speaking of Christians in the 18th and 19th Centuries.] This is true up through the first half of the twentieth century. R.A. Torrey (1856-1928), who helped to found both Moody Bible Institute and Biola University and who edited a series of books called The Fundamentals (from which we get the term “fundamentalist”), held to the gap theory. Even William Jennings Bryan, of the Scopes Monkey Trials fame, held to a day-age interpretation of Genesis 1.
Two of the most ardent anti-evolutionists of the twentieth century were W.B. Riley (1861-1947) and Harry Rimmer (1890-1952). Riley, editor of The Christian Fundamentalist and president of the Anti-Evolution League of America, held to the day-age position. Riley insisted that there was not “an intelligent fundamentalist who claims that the earth was made six thousand years ago: and the Bible never taught any such thing.” Rimmer, a self-educated layman and apologist known for his debating skills, held to the gap theory. In a celebrated series of debates, the two men argued for their respective positions with Rimmer generally considered to have been the victor.
Until 1960, the view that the proper interpretation of Genesis requires that the earth be less than 10,000 years old was advocated almost exclusively by George McCready Price, an apologist for Seventh-Day Adventists. Seventh-Day Adventists believe that the writings of their denomination’s founder, Ellen G. White, are divinely inspired and are to be treated as Scripture. White claimed she received a vision in which God carried her back to the original week of creation. There, she said, God showed her that the original week was seven days like any other week. Price worked tirelessly to defend White’s position as the only view that did not compromise biblical authority.
In 1961, John Whitcomb (1924-) and Henry Morris (1918-2006) published The Genesis Flood, which has sold over 300,000 copies and launched the modern creationist movement. Whitcomb and Morris argued that Ussher’s approach to determining the age of the universe was generally sound and that he universe must be less than 10,000 years old. Combining flood geology with the mature creation hypothesis, The Genesis Flood presented a compelling case for young-earth creationism. It would be difficult to exaggerate this book’s impact in shaping evangelical attitudes toward the question of the age of the earth. In many circles, adherence to a young earth is a point of orthodoxy. (p. 187-188)
When I first learned this, I was amazed. It freed me to rethink the matter from a new light. If good Christian leaders like R.A. Torrey, B.B. Warfield and the like could uphold direct creationism yet allow for an old earth, perhaps the matter is not such a do-or-die point. This doesn’t speak to the acceptance of evolution or a rejection of a historical Adam. The book’s authors do draw some clear lines in the sand, but when it comes to the age of the universe, that is a matter on which they agree to charitably disagree. May more of us follow this approach to the controversy. The age of the earth need not be a slippery slope, and good Christians are found on both sides of this debate.
UPDATE: Read my review of this book here.
Check out the book’s detail page at Kregel.com, where you can find an excerpt. Or pick up a copy at any of the following retailers:
• Christianbook.com
• Amazon.com
• Direct from Kregel
Disclaimer: This book was provided by Kregel Academic for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.
You say that one author is YEC, and the other is OEC. Is this a debate book, or are they collaborating to present all the views?
It’s more like a “state of the state” book. They present the questions and answers that are being given in a careful and fairly dispassionate way. They argue for more charity in the wider debate but also draw clear lines in the sand.
For those interested, there is a bit of a comment thread unfolding about my post over on Facebook.
Bob, I question the claim that 18th c. Christians were holding to an exceptionally old age for the earth. I think most of the old earth claims arose with Lyall’s geology in about the 1830s/1840s.
In the end, though, it is not what Christians thought that determines truth, it is what the Bible says. There are insurmountable theological problems for an old earth and I see no way around them for orthodox theology. That is not to insist that the earth is merely 6000 years old, but an age much beyond 10,000 is not supportable by the Bible, especially Rm 5.12 and Ex 20.11.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
Thanks for interacting.
1) As for your hesitation to agree with the main argument of the excerpt above, look at this. I found an interesting quote in a journal article by Terry Mortensen:
“So from all this it should be clear that by 1830, when Lyell published his uniformitarian theory, most geologists and much of the church already believed that the earth was much older than 6,000 years and that the Noachian flood was not the cause of most of the geological record. Lyell is often given too much credit (or blame) for the church’s loss of faith in Genesis.” (p. 77).
2) As to the problems for old earth, I believe there are some. I think both positions have problems and we have to find the best place to settle. I concur with how the authors of this book conclude:
“The conclusion must be that, though a cursory reading of Scripture would seem to indicate a recent creation, the preponderance of empirical evidence seems to indicate otherwise.” (p. 224)
They also point out that even YEC advocates agree. Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds, in their chapter on “Young Earth Creationism” in Three Views on Creation and Evolution (Zondervan, 1999) p. 51) say: “Recent creationists should humbly agree that their view is, at the moment, implausible on purely scientific grounds.”
Finally they also quote Wayne Grudem’s view with approval: “Although our conclusions are tentative, at this point in our understanding, Scripture seems to be more easily understood to suggest (but not to require) a young earth view, while the observable facts of creation seem increasingly to favor an old earth view. Both views are possible, but neither one is certain.” (Systematic Theology, 1994 edition, p 307-308). They also echo his call for there to be more unity and charity in this debate.
I think those sentiments are careful and charitable. Both points being what is often lacking in writing on this issue.
I agree with Don, there are insurmountable problems when you take an old earth view. Bob, while you say that both views have problems, I would say that an old earth view has a theological problem and a young earth view has a scientific problem. You don’t come to the conclusion of an old earth by just reading Scripture. With that said, I don’t think we need to take a dogmatic view that the earth was just 6,000 years old. It for sure could be older, but not to the point to resolve science (i.e. millions of years).
As stated above, but with a minor clarification, the problems with the OEC view are theological and biblical. The problems with the YEC view are rooted in the INTERPRETATION of scientific findings. The debate over origins is historical, not observational science (ie, it cannot be tested, observed, repeated). The idea of millions of years is rooted in a secular humanistic worldview, and while there are challenges, there are good scientific answers to almost every claim made by secular scientists on this issue (see some of the more technical work by AIG and ICR). I recently preached through Genesis 1-11 and was surprised to find almost every major OEC commentator making the allowance that a clear reading of Genesis 1-2 indicate a recent creation in six literal 24-hour days. They each then go on to explain why we have to reinterpret this based on the findings of modern science….that sounds like a faulty hermeneutic to me.
Creationism vs Evolution has nothing to do with the age of the universe. How the universe works and its age were established by physicists. These guys are so intent on disproving Evolution (which they will never do) that they completely leave physics out of the equation for establishing the age of the Universe.
The age of the universe (and thus the earth) was not generally accepted scientific fact until after Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. Before this theory, the accepted scientific view of the Universe was that it was static (unchanging always was) a belief going all the way back to Aristotle. The math works for a very old Universe – 14 or so billion years. Just ask Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Steven Hawking. Stop trying to use the Bible as a scientific treatise on the origins of the Universe. The closest that we have to science being accepted in the Bible is the heart being the seat of the emotions (Egyptian medical belief) and the obvious view of the writers that the earth was flat – water under the earth, “firmament” meaning beaten out like a bowl, storehouses for rain, hail, and snow – the accepted science of the day for how the earth worked. Also, the Bible writers believed in a geocentric system (Joshua did make the sun stand still after all). By the way, there are actually two creation accounts in Genesis. Chapter 1 is the one we all learn but chapter 2 has some decidedly different orders of creation.
Stop trying to make the Bible be scientific. Does it matter if the earth is 10,000 years old or 8 billion? We waste more time trying to defend God (something he never asks of us or needs from us) to the detriment of Christ’s Gospel.
Leave the science to the scientists and theology to the theologians.
You don’t come to a young earth view by reading the Bible either.
Brian, the idea of millions of years is rooted in good math and scientific experimentation. Just ask any astrophysicist if you don’t believe me. I have yet to read one purely scientific answer from a “young earther.” It can’t be done. They cannot help but introduce God or the Intelligent Designer into the equation. When one does that, suddenly, the conversation ceases to be scientific and becomes theological. Can’t have both and be purely scientific. Just because one believes in a very old Universe does not make one an Evolutionist!
By the way, I graduated from a well know fundamentalist Bible College in Southeastern Wisconsin and was taught Creationism as being scientific fact. Thankfully, I never did buy it. It is not science. It can only be theology. Teach it in Bible class. It has no business in the science class.
Lets devote our time to spreading the Gospel of Christ rather than try to defend the Bible as being scientifically accurate.