Jump to content

Young Earth creationism: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Grammar, some weasel words removed
→History: added seder olam rabbah & Hebrew Calander YEC dating
Line 13: Line 13:
==History==
==History==
===Origins===
===Origins===

The earliest post-exilic Jewish chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language, the [[Seder Olam Rabbah]], compiled by [[Jose ben Halafta]] in 160 AD, dates the creation of the world to 3751 BC while the later [[Seder Olam Zutt]] to 4339 BC.<ref>''Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Holy Bible'', 1879, 8th Edition, 1939—entry under ‘Creation’ quoting Dr. William Hales ''New Analysis of Chronology and Geography, History and Prophecy,”, vol. 1, 1830, p. 210</ref> The [[Hebrew Calendar]] has traditionally since the 4th century AD by [[Hillel II]] dated the creation to 3761 BC.<ref>http://www.dictionary.net/jewish+calendar</ref><ref>http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d911001.htm</ref>

Young Earth creationists have claimed that this view has its earliest roots in ancient Judaism, citing, for example, the commentary on Genesis by [[Abraham ibn Ezra|Ibn Ezra]] (c. 1089–1164).<ref name="Griffiths">{{cite journal|title=Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition|last=James-Griffiths|first=P|journal=Creation|volume=26|issue=2|pages=53–55|url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp|accessdate=2007-07-03}}</ref> Shai Cherry of [[Vanderbilt University]] notes that modern Jewish theologians have generally rejected such literal interpretations of the written text, and that even Jewish commentators who oppose some aspects of Darwinian thought generally accept scientific evidence that the Earth is much older.<ref>{{cite book|author=Cherry, S|title = Crisis management via Bilbical Interpretation: Fundamentalism, Modern Orthodoxy, and Genesis in Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism (Cantor, G Swetlitz, M, editors|publisher=University of Chicago Press|year=2006|isbn=978-0226092775}}</ref>
Young Earth creationists have claimed that this view has its earliest roots in ancient Judaism, citing, for example, the commentary on Genesis by [[Abraham ibn Ezra|Ibn Ezra]] (c. 1089–1164).<ref name="Griffiths">{{cite journal|title=Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition|last=James-Griffiths|first=P|journal=Creation|volume=26|issue=2|pages=53–55|url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp|accessdate=2007-07-03}}</ref> Shai Cherry of [[Vanderbilt University]] notes that modern Jewish theologians have generally rejected such literal interpretations of the written text, and that even Jewish commentators who oppose some aspects of Darwinian thought generally accept scientific evidence that the Earth is much older.<ref>{{cite book|author=Cherry, S|title = Crisis management via Bilbical Interpretation: Fundamentalism, Modern Orthodoxy, and Genesis in Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism (Cantor, G Swetlitz, M, editors|publisher=University of Chicago Press|year=2006|isbn=978-0226092775}}</ref>


Revision as of 20:14, 20 March 2011

Part of a series on
Creationism
Michelangelo's "The Creation of Adam" on the Sistine Chapel ceiling
History
Types
Biblical cosmology
Creation science
Rejection of evolution by religious groups
Religious views
Non-creation
Evolution
The creation of Adam, by Michalangelo. Adam was the first man according to the Book of Genesis.

Young Earth creationism (YEC) is a form of creationism that asserts the Heavens, Earth, and all life was created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God during a relatively short period, sometime between c. 5,700[1] and 10,000 years ago.[2] Its adherents are Christians and Jews[3] who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative as a basis for their beliefs,[4][5] and include around 10–45% of adults in the United States, depending on various polls.[6] Some adherents hold that this view is supported by existing evidence in the natural world. Such adherents believe that the scientific evidence supporting evolution, geological uniformitarianism, or other theories which are contradictory to a literal interpretation of this creation myth, is misinterpreted.[7]

Many Young Earth creationists (YECs) are active in the development of creation science, an endeavor that holds that the events associated with supernatural creation can be evidenced and modeled through an interpretation of the scientific method. This has led to the establishment of a number of Young Earth creation science organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research, Creation Research Society, Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis.

Some Young Earth creationists claim that the lack of support for a Young Earth theory in professional science journals or among professional science organizations is due to discrimination and censorship.[8][9][10][11] However, the established scientific consensus is that young Earth creationism has no scientific basis. For example, a joint statement of InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP) by 68 national and international science academies lists as established scientific fact that Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and has undergone continual change; that life, according to the evidence of earliest fossils, appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin.[12]

According to a Gallup poll in December 2010, around 40% of Americans believe in YEC, rising to over 50% among Republicans but reducing strongly with level of education (22% of respondents with postgraduate degrees compared with 47% of those with high school or less).[13]

History

Origins

The earliest post-exilic Jewish chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language, the Seder Olam Rabbah, compiled by Jose ben Halafta in 160 AD, dates the creation of the world to 3751 BC while the later Seder Olam Zutt to 4339 BC.[14] The Hebrew Calendar has traditionally since the 4th century AD by Hillel II dated the creation to 3761 BC.[15][16]

Young Earth creationists have claimed that this view has its earliest roots in ancient Judaism, citing, for example, the commentary on Genesis by Ibn Ezra (c. 1089–1164).[4] Shai Cherry of Vanderbilt University notes that modern Jewish theologians have generally rejected such literal interpretations of the written text, and that even Jewish commentators who oppose some aspects of Darwinian thought generally accept scientific evidence that the Earth is much older.[17]

Similar claims are made of Christian commentators, but a number of prominent early Christian Church Fathers including Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine, did not believe the Genesis creation myth depicted ordinary solar days and read creation history as an allegory as well as being theologically true. The Protestant reformation hermeneutic inclined some of the Reformers, including John Calvin[18][19] and Martin Luther,[20] and later Protestants toward a literal reading of the Bible as translated, believing in an ordinary day, and maintaining this younger-Earth view.[21][better source needed]

In 1650, Archbishop Ussher published the Ussher chronology, a chronology dating the creation to the night preceding October 23 4004 BC. Ussher's proposed date of 4004 BC differed little from other Biblically-based estimates, such as those of Bede (3952 BC), Ussher's near-contemporary, Scaliger (3949 BC), Johannes Kepler (3992 BC), Sir Isaac Newton (c. 4000 BC), or John Lightfoot (3929 BC).

Decline

Support for a young Earth declined from the eighteenth century onwards with the development of the scientific revolution, and scientific paradigm shifts. Findings in geology led to a number of explanations which required an ancient Earth, such as Abraham Gottlob Werner's Neptunism. James Hutton, now regarded as the father of modern geology, went further and opened up the concept of deep time for scientific inquiry. Rather than accepting that the Earth was deteriorating from a primal state, he maintained that the Earth must be much older (indeed, he asserted that the Earth was infinitely old). Hutton stated that

the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle.[22]

Hutton's main line of argument was that the tremendous displacements and changes he was seeing did not happen in a short period of time by means of catastrophe, but that the incremental processes of uplift and erosion happening on the Earth in the present day had caused them. As these processes were very gradual, the Earth needed to be ancient, in order to allow time for the changes to occur. While his ideas of Plutonism were hotly contested, scientific inquiries on competing ideas of catastrophism pushed back the age of the Earth into the millions of years — still much younger than commonly accepted by modern scientists, but a great change from the literalist view of an Earth that was only a few thousand years old.[23]

Hutton's ideas, called uniformitarianism or gradualism, were popularized by Sir Charles Lyell in the early nineteenth century. The energetic advocacy and rhetoric of Lyell led to the public and scientific communities largely accepting an ancient Earth. By this time the Reverends William Buckland, Adam Sedgwick and other early geologists had abandoned their earlier ideas of catastrophism related to a Biblical flood and confined their explanations to local floods. By the 1830s, mainstream science had abandoned Young Earth creationism as a serious hypothesis. It became therefore important for biblical scholars as well as Christian scientists to harmonize the Genesis myth with new scientific results into a 'new geology'.[24]

John H. Mears was one such scholar who proposed several theories varying from a mix of long/indefinite periods with moments of creation to a day-age theory of indefinite 'days'. He subscribed to the latter theory (indefinite days) and found support from the side of James Dwight Dana, Professor at Yale and one of the fathers of Mineralogy who wrote a paper consisting of four articles named 'Science and the Bible' on the topic.[25] With the acceptance by many biblical scholars of a reinterpretation of Genesis 1 in the light of the breakthrough results of Lyell and supported by a number of renowned (Christian) scientific scholars, a new hurdle was taken in the future acceptance of Developmentalism (based on Darwin's Natural selection).[26]

The decline of support for a Biblically literal young Earth during the 19th century was opposed by first the scriptural geologists[27] and then by the founders of the Victoria Institute.[28]

Revival

The rise of fundamentalist Christianity at the start of the twentieth century saw a revival of interest in Young Earth creationism, as a part of the movement's rejection of the explanation of evolution.[29] In 1923, George McCready Price, a Seventh-day Adventist wrote The New Geology, a book partly inspired by the book Patriarchs and Prophets in which Seventh-day Adventist prophet Ellen G. White described the impact of the Great flood on the shape of the Earth. Although not an accredited geologist, Price's writings, which were based upon reading geological texts and documents rather than field or laboratory work,[30] provide an explicitly fundamentalist perspective on geology. The book attracted a small following, with its advocates almost all being Lutheran pastors and Seventh-day Adventists in America.[31] Harry Rimmer was another prominent exponent of similar views, at least during some of his evangelizing career (Rimmer appears to have also subscribed to "gap creationism", and a local flood, at least at some times).[32]

In the 1950s, Price's work came under severe criticism, particularly by Bernard Ramm in his book The Christian View of Science and Scripture. Together with J. Laurence Kulp, a geologist and in fellowship with the Plymouth Brethren, and other scientists,[33] Ramm influenced Christian organizations such as the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) in not supporting flood geology.

Price's work was subsequently adapted and updated by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb Jr. in their book The Genesis Flood in 1961. Morris and Whitcomb argued that the Earth was geologically recent and that the Great Flood had laid down most of the geological strata in the space of a single year, reviving pre-uniformitarian arguments. Given this history, they argued, "the last refuge of the case for evolution immediately vanishes away, and the record of the rocks becomes a tremendous witness... to the holiness and justice and power of the living God of Creation!"[34]

This became the foundation of a new generation of Young Earth creationist thinkers, who organized themselves around Morris' Institute for Creation Research. Sister organizations such as the Creation Research Society have sought to re-interpret geological formations within a Young Earth creationist viewpoint. Langdon Gilkey writes

... no distinction is made between scientific theories on the one hand and philosophical or religious theories on the other, between scientific questions and the sorts of questions religious beliefs seek to answer... It is, therefore, no surprise that in their theological works, as opposed to their creation science writings, creationists regard evolution and all other theories associated with it, as the intellectual source for and intellectual justification of everything that is to them evil and destructive in modern society. For them all that is spiritually healthy and creative has been for a century or more under attack by "that most complex of godless movements spawned by the pervasive and powerful system of evolutionary uniformitarianism", "If the system of flood geology can be established on a sound scientific basis... then the entire evolutionary cosmology, at least in its present neo-Darwinian form, will collapse. This in turn would mean that every anti-Christian system and movement (communism, racism, humanism, libertarianism, behaviorism, and all the rest) would be deprived of their pseudo-intellectual foundation", "It [evolution] has served effectively as the pseudo-scientific basis of atheism, agnosticism, socialism, fascism, and numerous faulty and dangerous philosophies over the past century.[35]

Morris' ideas had a considerable impact on creationism and fundamentalist Christianity. Armed with the backing of conservative organizations and individuals, his brand of "creation science" was widely promoted throughout the United States and overseas, with his books being translated into at least ten different languages.

In 1978, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy developed the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy which included the following:

WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about Earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.[36]

As of 2008 a Gallup poll indicated that 36% of US adults agreed with the statement "human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.", 14% believed that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process." and 44% of US adults agreed with the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."[6]

The revival of Young Earth creationism has had a periodic impact on science education, particularly in the United States, where periodic controversies have raged over the appropriateness of teaching YEC doctrine and creation science in public schools (see Teach the Controversy) side by side with the theory of evolution.

Young Earth creationism has failed to make an impact in less literalist circles of Christianity. Some Churches such as the Roman Catholic Church, accept the possibility of theistic evolution but despite this, some individual church members support Young Earth creationism.[37]

Characteristics and beliefs

View of the Bible

See also: Biblical literalism

Young Earth creationists regard the Bible as a historically accurate, factually inerrant record of natural history. They accept its authority as the central organizing text for human life — the sole indisputable source of knowledge on every topic with which it deals. As Henry Morris, a leading Young Earth creationist, explained it, Christians who flirt with less-than-literal readings of biblical texts are also flirting with theological disaster.[38][39] For the vast majority of Young Earth creationists, an allegorical reading of the Genesis creation narrative, the Fall of Man, Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel would undermine core Christian doctrines like the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ. According to Morris, Christians must "either ... believe God's Word all the way, or not at all."[38] Therefore, Young Earth creationists consider the account of creation given in Genesis to be a factual record of the origin of the Earth and life, and that Bible-believing Christians must therefore regard the Genesis 1–11 as historically accurate.

Interpretation of Genesis

See also: Genesis creation narrative

Young Earth creationists interpret the text of Genesis in a strictly literal fashion. Therefore, they believe that God created the world in six normal-length days, and planted the Garden of Eden for the habitation of an original human couple (Adam and Eve). As a result of the subsequent Fall of Man, humanity was forced to work hard to provide food, childbirth became painful, and physical death entered the world. Young Earth creationists believe that prior to the Fall all animals were herbivores.[40] (See Animal behavior below.)

The Genealogies of Genesis record the line of descent from Adam through Noah to Abraham. Young Earth creationists interpret these genealogies literally, including the old ages of the men. For example, Methuselah lived 969 years according to the genealogy. Differences of opinion exist regarding whether the genealogies should be taken as complete or abbreviated, hence the 6,000 to 10,000 year range usually quoted for the Earth's age. Proponents of Old Earth Creationism tend to interpret the genealogies as incomplete, and usually interpret the days of Genesis 1 figuratively as long periods of time.

Young Earth creationists believe that the events described in the Genesis deluge myth did occur, were global in extent, and submerged the highest mountains on Earth. A range of suggestions are made to account for the mechanism for such a deluge. Earlier generations (following the lead of Morris and Whitcomb) believed that an orbiting vapor canopy collapsed, generating extreme rainfall (from "windows of heaven"). In more recent times it has been proposed that radical geological activity (the opening of the "fountains of the great deep") was largely responsible for the flood — proposals such as catastrophic plate tectonics and hydroplates have been put forward by some. These hypotheses have the added benefit of explaining how the flood transformed an originally flatter Earth, raising up mountains and dropping sea beds; this then solves the problem of finding sufficient water to cover Mount Everest. Whatever the case, almost all Young Earth creationists refer to hypothesised processes of "flood geology" to argue that the vast majority of present-day geological features are the result of the deluge.

To support their belief in a worldwide flood, Young Earth creationists argue that anthropological evidence supports their belief that most of the cultures have, in their history, a myth similar to that of the biblical myth in two aspects: 1) the occurrence of a catastrophic flood[41] and 2) human and animal life saved by a man who built a large boat and took aboard it for the duration of the flood enough life to repopulate the Earth.[42] According to Genesis, two of every "unclean" kind of animal (male and female) and seven of every "clean" kind of animal were placed on the ark during the flood.

After the flood, Genesis reports the average human lifespan dropping quickly from an average of 900 years at the time of Noah to an average of 175 by the time of Abraham. Some Young Earth creationists have suggested that this is due to effects associated with inbreeding that took place after the flood, as only eight people remained.[43] Another hypothesis suggests that the Earth had a higher concentration of oxygen prior to the flood, possibly due to a layer of water vapor ("vapor canopy") above the Earth. The result of such a postulation would be a giant hyperbaric chamber, extending lifespans. Others hypothesize that the "firmament" of the "waters above" screened the Earth from harmful ultraviolet rays, which they argue, shorten life expectancy.

Age of the Earth

See also: Creation geophysics, Dating creation, and Flood geology

Young Earth creationists believe that the Earth is "young", on the order of 6,000 to 10,000 years old.[44] This depends on a literal interpretation of the internal chronology of the bible, and contrasts with the age of 4.54 billion years estimated by modern geology using geochronological methods including radiometric dating. Mike Riddle, writing for the Young Earth creationist apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis, states that radioactive decay rates are not constant and thus challenge the validity of scientifically-accepted radiometric methods.[45] While there is evidence for variability in decay rates,[46][47][48] this occurs under particular circumstances in nature that are not relevant to radiometric dating.[49][50] Further, radioisotope-derived ages have been verified many times using both independent and different radiometric methods, and by consistency with a number of non-radiometric dating methods.[51] Scientists also point to serious flaws in the RATE study of radioisotope dating undertaken by a team of Young Earth creationists.[52][53][54]

Attitude towards science

Main article: Creation science

Young Earth creationism is normally characterized as opposing evolution, though it also opposes many claims and theories in the fields of physics and chemistry (especially absolute dating methods), geology, astronomy, cosmology, molecular biology, genomics, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, climatology, dendrochronology and any other fields of science that have developed theories or made claims incompatible with the Young Earth version of world history. (See creation science, flood geology, creation geophysics and objections to evolution for details of disagreements.) Young Earth creationists are fundamentally opposed to any explanation for the origins of anything which deviates from their literal reading of the Bible, whether it be the origins of biological diversity, the origins of life or the origins of the universe itself. This has led some Young Earth creationists to criticize intelligent design, a proposal generally viewed as an alternative form of creationism, for not taking a stand on the age of the Earth, special creation, or even the identity of the designer. Some Young Earth creationists see this as too compromising.[55]

Young Earth creationists challenge the methodological naturalism of the scientific method, which they conflate with philosophical naturalism, and uniformitarianism as the dominant principles of the scientific community. They assert instead that available physical evidence best supports original catastrophism and a young Earth. See Creation-evolution controversy for a more complete discussion.

Human history

See also: Early human migrations

In keeping with a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis, Young Earth creationists believe that Adam and Eve were the universal ancestors of the entire human race; accordingly it is usually held that their sons and daughters married among themselves to produce the next generation of children.[56] Noah's flood is supposed to have killed all humans on Earth with the exception of Noah and his sons and their wives. All humans alive today are therefore believed to be descended from this single family, which carried the gene pool for the entire human race. In contradiction to what is accepted by anthropologists, Young Earth creationists assert that native Americans, Australian aborigines and all other races arose from the migration of people around the world following the Tower of Babel event in the 3rd millennium BC.

Animal behavior

Young Earth creationists interpret Genesis to teach that prior to the Fall of man there was no predatory or carnivorous activity among animals, and animals did not die. It is thought that all animals, together with humans, subsisted on an entirely vegetarian diet.[57] This raises the question of what was the original (i.e. pre-Fall) function of such things as snake venom and spiders webs. Young Earth creationists typically answer these questions either by postulating a non-lethal original purpose for these predatory mechanisms (e.g. snake venom was designed to soften fruit), or suggesting that these mechanisms were miraculously added to animals by God or the devil at the time of the Fall.[58]

The implication of these ideas – that before the Fall animals would eventually exceed the carrying capacity of the Earth – is not considered a problem by some Young Earth creationists since they believe that the Earth did not remain in its unfallen state for any (generationally) appreciable time.[59]

Diversification of life

Young Earth creationists also assert that all modern species of land vertebrates are descended from those original animals on the ark. Many Young Earth creationists believe that the Ark "kinds" diversified as they subsequently adapted to their environments by the process of variation and rapid natural selection. The selection of such animals as kangaroo and koalas on the ark is based upon hypothesized sunken land bridges between Australia and South East Asia, over which Noah or his sons, or the ancestors of the animals themselves, could travel. Many Young Earth creationists assert that the process of variation and natural selection resulted in a net loss of genetic information.[60][61]

Paleontology and dinosaurs

See also: Paleontology and Dinosaur

The significance of this issue to Young Earth creationists has its roots in a biblical interpretation of the fall of man that results in sin bringing death into the world, not just for mankind but for all creatures.[62]

The term "dinosaur" was first used by Richard Owen in 1842. As it is a modern coinage derived from Greek, the Bible does not use the word "dinosaur", but the Hebrew word tanniyn (pronounced [tanˈnin]) has been interpreted as referring to them by some Christians.[63] In English translations, tanniyn may be translated as “sea monster” or “serpent”, but it is usually translated as “dragon”. These creatures are mentioned nearly thirty times in the Old Testament and are found both on land and in the water. At another point, the Bible describes a huge creature called a "behemoth" (Job 40:15–24) that "moves his tail like a cedar"; the behemoth is described as ranking "first among the works of God" and as impossible to capture (vs. 24).

Some Biblical scholars identify the behemoth as either an elephant, a hippopotamus, or a bull, but as these animals have very thin tails that are not comparable to the size of a cedar tree, creationists often identify the behemoth with sauropod dinosaurs. Some of this creationists refer to "behemoth" specifically as Brachiosaurus, since the Bible says in Job, "He is the chief of the ways of God", meaning he is the largest animal God created.[63] However, certain scholars postulate that the reference to the cedar tree actually refers to its needle-like leaves, which resemble the bristly hair present on the tails of modern elephants, rhinoceroses, and hippopotamuses.[64] Other critics contend that the word "tail" is a euphemism for the animal's penis, and that the passage should be understood as describing its virility.[65][66]

The Leviathan is another creature referred to in the Bible's Old Testament; it is described as having a variety of what today would be called dinosaur, dragon, and water-serpent-like characteristics. Some scholars identify the Leviathan in Job c. 41 with the Nile crocodile, or point out that it has seven heads and is purely mythical. As with the behemoth, creationists have sometimes tried to connect the Leviathan with the dinosaurs.[67]

Young Earth creationists do not deny the existence of dinosaurs and other extinct animals present in the fossil record.[68][69] Usually, they assert that the fossils represent the remains of animals that perished in the Great Flood. Most believe that Noah took the dinosaurs with him in the ark,[70] and that they gradually became extinct as a result of a vastly different post-flood environment.[71] The newly-established Creation Museum in Kentucky portrays humans and dinosaurs coexisting before the Flood.

For many years, Young Earth creationists referred to supposed associated human and dinosaur tracks in the Glen Rose Formation, Dinosaur Valley State Park, Texas as proof of coexistence, though most now have abandoned these claims, as careful scrutiny has shown some of them to be either fabrications or spurious phenomena.[72] Some creationists assert that living dinosaurs (as well as other extinct creatures such as plesiosaurs) still survive in isolated spots (see living dinosaur (cryptozoology)), accounting for alleged sightings of lake or sea monsters.[73] Other creationists urge caution about alleged plesiosaurs living today, since rotting basking sharks can form a pseudo-plesiosaur shape.[74] Creationists sometimes turn to cryptozoology to support the idea that creatures only known from fossils lived alongside humans in historical times.

Young Earth creationists occasionally claim that dinosaurs survived in Australia, and that Aboriginal legends of reptilian monsters are evidence of this,[75] referring to what is known as Megalania (Varanus priscus). However, Megalania was a gigantic monitor lizard, and not a dinosaur, as its discoverer, Richard Owen, realized that the skeletal remains were that of a lizard, and not an archosaur.

Comparison with other forms of creationism

Young Earth creationism is only one of several forms of creationism. YECs typically oppose these alternative theories, which they consider to be "controlled by the findings of 'science'"[76] or otherwise flawed.

Old Earth creationism

See also: Old Earth creationism

Young Earth creationists reject Old Earth creationism and Day-Age creationism on textual and theological grounds. In addition, they claim the scientific data in geology and astronomy point to a young Earth, against the consensus of the general scientific community.

Young Earth creationists generally hold that when Genesis describes the creation of the Earth occurring over a period of days, this indicates normal-length 24 hour days, and cannot reasonably be interpreted otherwise. They agree that the Hebrew word for "day" (yôm) can refer to either a 24-hour day or a long or unspecified time, but argue that whenever the latter interpretation is used it includes a preposition defining the long or unspecified period. In the specific context of Genesis 1, since the days are both numbered and are referred to as "evening and morning", this can mean only normal-length days. Further, they argue that the 24-hour day is the only interpretation that makes sense of the Sabbath command in Exodus 20:8–11. YECs argue that it is a glaring exegetical fallacy to take a meaning from one context (yom referring to a long period of time in Genesis 1) and apply it to a completely different one (yom referring to normal-length days in Exodus 20).[77]

Further, Young Earth creationists argue that their position is the only way to explain the Fall, which introduced death and suffering into the world. They argue that all long-age views entail death before sin, which they regard as a severe theological error, violating Genesis 3, and for Christians, Romans 5:12–19, 8:17–22 and 1 Corinthians 15:21–22.[78]

Gap creationism

See also: Gap creationism

The "gap theory" acknowledges a vast age for the universe, including the Earth and solar system, while asserting that life was created recently in six 24-hour days by divine fiat. Genesis 1 is thus interpreted literally, with an indefinite "gap" of time inserted between the first two verses. (Some gap theorists insert a "primordial creation" and Lucifer's rebellion into the gap.)

Most Young Earth creationist organizations reject the gap theory, and say it is unscriptural, unscientific, and not necessary, in its various forms.[79][80] YECs assert that the entire universe is only thousands of years old.

Omphalos hypothesis

See also: Omphalos hypothesis

Many Young Earth creationists distinguish their own hypotheses from the "Omphalos hypothesis", today more commonly referred to as the apparent age concept, put forth by the naturalist and science writer Philip Henry Gosse. Omphalos was an unsuccessful mid-19th century attempt to reconcile creationism with geology. Gosse proposed that just as Adam had a navel (omphalos is Greek for navel), evidence of a gestation he never experienced, so also the Earth was created ex nihilo complete with evidence of a prehistoric past that never actually occurred. The Omphalos hypothesis allows for a young Earth without giving rise to any predictions that would contradict scientific findings of an old Earth. Although both logically unassailable and consistent with a literal reading of Scripture, Omphalos was rejected at the time by scientists on the grounds that it was completely unfalsifiable and by theologians because it implied to them a deceitful God, which they found theologically unacceptable.

Most Young Earth creationists today argue that Adam did not have a navel,[81] and in contrast to Gosse, posit that not only is the Earth young but the scientific data supports that view. However, the apparent age concept is still used in Young Earth creationist literature.[82][83][84]

Criticism

Lack of scientific acceptance

Young Earth creationism was abandoned as a mainstream scientific concept around the start of the 19th century.[85] Most scientists see it as a non-scientific position, and regard attempts to prove it scientifically as being little more than religiously motivated pseudoscience. In 1997, a poll by the Gallup organization showed that 5% of US adults with professional degrees in science took a Young Earth creationist view. In the aforementioned poll 40% of the same group said that they believed that life, including humans, had evolved over millions of years, but that God guided this process; a view described as theistic evolution, while 55% held a view of "naturalistic evolution" in which no God took part in this process.[86] Some scientists (such as Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder) who believe in creationism are known to subscribe to other forms such as Old Earth creationism which posits an act of creation that took place millions or billions of years ago, with variations on the timing of the creation of mankind.

Methodology

Against the Young Earth Creationist attacks on "evolutionism" and "Darwinism", critics argue that every challenge to evolution by YECs is either made in an unscientific fashion, or is readily explainable by science, and that while a gap in scientific knowledge may exist now it is likely to be closed through further research. While scientists acknowledge that there are indeed a number of gaps in the scientific theory, they generally reject the creationist viewpoint that these gaps represent fatal, insurmountable flaws with evolution. Those working in the field who pointed out the gaps in the first place have often explicitly rejected the creationist interpretation. The "God of the gaps" viewpoint has also been criticized by theologians and philosophers,[87] although creationists claim that their models are based on what is known, not on gaps in knowledge.[citation needed]

Christian Young Earth creationists adhere strongly to a concept of biblical inerrancy which declares the Bible to be divinely inspired and written as a plain, omniscient account of history and doctrine, and therefore scientifically infallible and non-correctable. This position is considered by devotees and critics alike to be incompatible with the principles of scientific objectivity. The Young Earth creationist organizations Answers in Genesis (AiG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) require all members to pledge support for biblical inerrancy.

Young Earth creationists often suggest that supporters of evolution theory are primarily motivated by atheism. Critics reject this claim by pointing out that many supporters of evolutionary theory are in fact religious believers, and that major religious groups such as the Roman Catholic Church and Church of England believe that the concept of biological evolution does not imply a rejection of the scriptures. Nor do they support the specific doctrines of biblical inerrancy proposed by Young Earth creationism. Critics also point out that workers in fields related to evolutionary biology are not required to sign statements of belief in evolution comparable to the biblical inerrancy pledges required by ICR and AiG. This is contrary to the popular belief of creationists that scientists operate on an a priori disbelief in biblical principles.[88] They also discount Christian faith positions, like those of French Jesuit priest, geologist and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who saw that his work with evolutionary sciences actually confirmed and inspired his faith in the cosmic Christ. Nor do they believe the views of Catholic priest Fr. Thomas Berry, a cultural historian and eco-theologian, that the cosmological 13 billion year "Universe Story" provides all faiths and all traditions a single account by which the divine has made its presence in the world.

Proponents of Young Earth creationism are regularly accused of quote mining, the practice of isolating passages from academic texts that appear to support their claims while deliberately excluding context and conclusions to the contrary.[89]

Theology

Some theologians[who?] reject a literal interpretation of the creation narrative in Genesis. They propose there are statements in the creation week itself which render the historical interpretation of Genesis incompatible with scientific evidence.

One example is that God created the Earth and heavens, and light, on Day 1, plant life on Day 3, and the sun and moon on Day 4. One must ask where the light in Day 1 came from, and why there were plants in Day 3 if the sun, which provides all light to the Earth, did not even exist until Day 4.[90] YECs such as Basil the Great and John Calvin answered this by suggesting that the light created by God on Day 1 was the light source. Answers in Genesis has refined this by suggesting that the Earth was already rotating with respect to this light.[91]

Another problem is the fact that distant galaxies can be seen. If the universe did not exist until 10,000 years ago, then light from anything farther than 10,000 light-years would not have time to reach us. Most cosmologists accept an inflation model as the likely explanation for the horizon problem. Inflationary models also account for other phenomena, and are in agreement with observations of recent microwave anisotropy satellites. Creationists have also proposed models to explain why we see distant starlight.[92][93] See creationist cosmologies and the starlight problem for more information.

Many critics claim that Genesis itself is internally inconsistent on the question of whether man was created before the animals (Genesis 2:19Template:Bibleverse with invalid book) or after the animals as stated in Genesis. Proponents of the Documentary hypothesis suggest that Genesis 1 was a litany from the Priestly source (possibly from an early Jewish liturgy) while Genesis 2 was assembled from older Jahwist material, holding that for both stories to be a single account, Adam would have named all the animals, and God would have created Eve from his rib as a suitable mate, all within a single 24 hour period. Many creationists attribute this view to misunderstanding having arisen from poor translation of the tenses in Genesis 2 in contemporary translations of the Bible (e.g. compare "planted" and "had planted" in the King James Version and New International Version[94]).[95][unreliable source?] Some Christians assert that the Bible is free from error only in religious and moral matters, and that where scientific questions are concerned, the Bible should not be read literally. This position is held by a number of major denominations. For instance, in a publication entitled The Gift of Scripture, the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales comments that "We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision". The Bible is held to be true in passages relating to human salvation, but "We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters."[96][97] By contrast, YECs contend that moral and spiritual matters in the Bible are intimately connected with its historical accuracy; in their view, the Bible stands or falls as a single indivisible block of knowledge.[98]

Aside from the theological doubts voiced by other Christians, YEC also stands in opposition to the creation mythologies of other religions (both extant and extinct). Many of these make claims regarding the origin of the universe and humanity that are completely incompatible with those of Christian creationists (and with one another).[99]

Adhering church bodies

See also

Notes

  1. ^ According to the Hebrew calendar the Universe was created in 3760 BC (see: *Dimont, Max I. (1996). Amazing Adventures of the Jewish People. Behrman House Publishing. pp. IX. ISBN 0-87441-391-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); *Dosick, Wayne D. (1995). Living Judaism: the complete guide to Jewish beliefs, tradition, and practice. San Francisco: HarperSan Francisco. p. 119. ISBN 0-06-062119-2. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); *Bridger, David; Wolk, Samuel (1976). The New Jewish encyclopedia. New York: Behrman House. p. 91. ISBN 0-87441-120-3. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)); the exact year may vary a bit due to small differences between the manuscripts and traditions.
  2. ^ Numbers(2006) p11
  3. ^ Christianity and Judaism being the two major religions for which Genesis is canonical. See Zucker, David (2005). The Torah: An Introduction for Christians and Jews. Paulist Press. ISBN 0809143496..
  4. ^ a b James-Griffiths, P. "Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition". Creation. 26 (2): 53–55. Retrieved 2007-07-03.
  5. ^ Numbers(2006) throughout, but especially pp10-11, chapters 5, 7, 10–12
  6. ^ a b Gallup Poll. May 8–11, 2008. N=1,017 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
  7. ^ "Systematic Theology Texts and the Age of the Earth". Retrieved 2010-05-11.
  8. ^ Sheppard, P (2005). "The Smithsonian/Sternberg controversy". Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 2007-07-03.
  9. ^ Buckna, D (2007). "Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?". Creation Ministries International. Retrieved 2007-07-03.
  10. ^ Unruh, B (2006). "Congress slams Smithsonian's anti-religious attacks". Retrieved 2007-07-03.
  11. ^ United States House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform (2006). "US Congressional Committee Report: Intolerance and the politicization of science at the Smithsonian". The Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-07-03. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  12. ^ "IAP Statement on the teaching of evolution" (PDF). the Interacademy Panel on international issues. 2006. Retrieved 2010-12-23.
  13. ^ [1] Four in 10 Americans Believe in Strict Creationism, Gallup, December 2010
  14. ^ Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Holy Bible, 1879, 8th Edition, 1939—entry under ‘Creation’ quoting Dr. William Hales New Analysis of Chronology and Geography, History and Prophecy,”, vol. 1, 1830, p. 210
  15. ^ http://www.dictionary.net/jewish+calendar
  16. ^ http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d911001.htm
  17. ^ Cherry, S (2006). Crisis management via Bilbical Interpretation: Fundamentalism, Modern Orthodoxy, and Genesis in Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism (Cantor, G Swetlitz, M, editors. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226092775.
  18. ^ Calvin, John (1554). Genesis. ISBN 0820439924. I have said above, that six days were employed in the formation of the world; not that God, to whom one moment is as a thousand years, had need of this succession of time, but that he might engage us in the consideration of his works.
  19. ^ Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. ISBN 0875521827. Retrieved 17 December 2010. Nor will they abstain from their jeers when told that little more than five thousand years have elapsed since the creation of the world.
  20. ^ Luther, Martin (1958). Jaroslav Pelikan (ed.). Luther's Works vol. 1: Lectures on Genesis Chapters 1–5. Fortress Press. We know from Moses that the world was not in existence before 6,000 years ago. (pg. 3) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |quote2= ignored (help)
  21. ^ Young, Davis A.; Stearley, Ralph F. (2008). The Bible, Rocks, and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth. InterVarsity Press. pp. 44–46. ISBN 0830828761. Retrieved 17 December 2010.
  22. ^ 'Theory of the Earth', a paper (with the same title of his 1795 book) communicated to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and published in Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1785; cited with approval in Holmes, A., Principles of Physical Geology, second edition, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pp. 43–44, 1965.
  23. ^ Theory of the Earth full text (1788 version)
  24. ^ Uniformitarianism: Charles Lyell, University of California Museum of Paleontology
  25. ^ Dana, Phd. Professor at Yale, James Dwight (1856–1857). Science and the Bible, a review of and the six days of creation of Prof. Lewis Taylor. Bibl. Soc. URL: Prof. James Dwight Dana, Science and the Bible, online version
  26. ^ "Bible.org, Darwinism and New England Theology". 2004. Retrieved 2007-07-08.
  27. ^ The Great Devonian Controversy, Martin J. S. Rudwick, 1988, ISBN 0226731022, pp 42–44
  28. ^ McNatt, Jerrold L. (September 2004). "James Clerk Maxwell's Refusal to Join the Victoria Institute" (PDF). Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. 56 (3). American Scientific Affiliation: 204–215. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  29. ^ Numbers(2006) pp 51–68
  30. ^ Numbers(2006) pp 88–119
  31. ^ Marston, P & Forster, R (2001). Reason Science and Faith. Monarch Books. ISBN 978-1579106614. Retrieved 2007-06-30.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  32. ^ Numbers(2006) pp 76–87
  33. ^ Radiocarbon Dating and American Evangelical Christians
  34. ^ Whitcomb, JC (1960). The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications. P&R Publishing. ISBN 978-0875523385
  35. ^ (Gilkey, 1998, p. 35; quotations from Henry Morris).
  36. ^ "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition". Bible Research. 1978. Retrieved 2007-07-03.
  37. ^ Philip Porvaznik. "Dialogue on Evolution versus Creationism". Catholic Apologetics International. Retrieved 2007-10-10.
  38. ^ a b Morris, HM (2000). The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict. Master Books. ISBN 978-0890512913.
  39. ^ Morris, HM (2000). Biblical Creationism: What Each Book of the Bible Teaches About Creation & the Flood. Master Books. ISBN 978-0890512937.
  40. ^ http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_3/j18_3_70-75.pdf
  41. ^ Prothero, Donald R.; Dennis Buell, Carl (2007). Evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 26. ISBN 0-231-13962-4.
  42. ^ "Flood Legends From Around the World". Northwest Creation Network. Retrieved 17 December 2010.
  43. ^ Carl Wieland. "Living for 900 years". Answers in Genesis.
  44. ^ "Evidence for a young Earth". 2006. Retrieved 28 September 2010.
  45. ^ "Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth Is Old?". Answers in Genesis. 4 October 2007. Retrieved 28 September 2010.
  46. ^ Bosch; Faestermann, T; Friese, J; Heine, F; Kienle, P; Wefers, E; Zeitelhack, K; Beckert, K; Franzke, B (1996). "Observation of bound-state β– decay of fully ionized 187Re:187Re-187Os Cosmochronometry". Physical Review Letters. 77 (26): 5190–5193. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.5190. PMID 10062738.
  47. ^ Wang, B. (2006). "Change of the 7Be electron capture half-life in metallic environments". Euro. Phys. J. A. 28 (3): 375–377. Bibcode:2006EPJA...28..375W. doi:10.1140/epja/i2006-10068-x. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  48. ^ Stober, Dan (23 August 2010). "The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements". Stanford University. Retrieved 28 September 2010.
  49. ^ "Claim CF210: Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates". TalkOrigins. 4 June 2003. Retrieved 28 September 2010.
  50. ^ "Oklo: Natural Nuclear Reactors". U.S. Department of Energy. November 2004. Archived from the original on 2 July 2008. Retrieved 28 September 2010.
  51. ^ "Claim CD010: Radiometric dating gives unreliable results". TalkOrigins Archive. 18 February 2001. Retrieved 28 September 2010.
  52. ^ Henke, K. R. (24 November 2005). "Young-Earth Creationist Helium Diffusion "Dates" Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data". TalkOrigins. Retrieved 28 September 2010.
  53. ^ Meert, J. G. (6 February 2003). "R.A.T.E: More Faulty Creation Science from The Institute for Creation Research". Gondwana Research. Retrieved 28 September 2010.
  54. ^ Wiens, R. C. (2002). "Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective". American Scientific Affiliation. Retrieved 28 September 2010.
  55. ^ Carl Wieland (30 August 2002). "AiG's views on the Intelligent Design Movement". Answers in Genesis.
  56. ^ "Cain's wife — who was she?". Answers In Genesis.
  57. ^ "Creation's original diet and the changes at the Fall". Answers in Genesis.
  58. ^ "How did bad things come about?". Answers in Genesis.
  59. ^ Wayne A. Grudem "Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine", Zondervan, 1996. ISBN 0-3102-8670-0
  60. ^ "Evidence for Evolution". All About Creation.
  61. ^ Roger Patterson. "Natural Selection vs. Evolution". Answers in Genesis.
  62. ^ Ham, Ken; et al. "What happened to the dinosaurs?". Retrieved 2007-03-14. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |last2= (help)
  63. ^ a b "Dinosaurs and the Bible". Clarifying Christianity'. 2005. Retrieved 2007-03-14.
  64. ^ Bright, Michael (2006). Beasts of the Field: The Revealing Natural History of Animals in the Bible. London: Robson. p. 346. ISBN 1861058314.
  65. ^ Pennock, Robert T. (2000). Tower of Babel: the evidence against the new creationism. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-66165-9.
  66. ^ "CH711: Behemoth a Dinosaur". Retrieved 2007-09-13.
  67. ^ "Claim CH711.1: Leviathan as a dinosaur". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-14.
  68. ^ "Dinosaurs and the Bible". Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 2007-12-23.
  69. ^ Powell, Michael (2005-09-25). "In Evolution Debate, Creationists Are Breaking New Ground". The Washington Post.
  70. ^ "Dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark: US museum". ABC News (Australia). Retrieved 2007-11-06.
  71. ^ What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs? – Answers in Genesis
  72. ^ Edwords, Frederick (March/April 1986). "Seeing the Light". The Humanist. 46 (2). American Humanist Association: 33–34. ISSN 0018-7399. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  73. ^ Creation Science Evangelism – Creation, Evolution, Dinosaurs, and the Bible
  74. ^ Letting rotting sharks lie
  75. ^ Driver, Rebecca. "Australia's Aborigines ... did they see dinosaurs?". Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 2007-03-14.
  76. ^ Get Answers: Creation Compromises
  77. ^ How long were the days of Genesis 1?
  78. ^ The Fall: a cosmic catastrophe
  79. ^ Henry M. Morris (1987). "The gap theory — an idea with holes?". Retrieved 2007-02-14. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  80. ^ Don Batten (2004). "'Soft' gap sophistry". Archived from the original on 2007-04-09. Retrieved 2007-02-14. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  81. ^ Did Adam have a belly-button?
  82. ^ Apologetics Press – Apparent Age
  83. ^ The Apparent Age Argument
  84. ^ Appearance of Age – theology overview & web-links
  85. ^ "History of Science: Early Modern Geology". Retrieved 2007-09-24.
  86. ^ "Gallup Poll 1997".
  87. ^ Is there anything wrong with “God of the gaps” reasoning?, by Robert Larmer
  88. ^ Amazing admission.
  89. ^ Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists
  90. ^ A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account (Part 1 of 2), Answers in Genesis
  91. ^ How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal before the sun was created?, Answers in Genesis
  92. ^ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang, Answers in Genesis
  93. ^ Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?, Answers in Genesis
  94. ^ "And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed." — KJV and "Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed." — NIV
  95. ^ Biblical Exegesis Archived (Date missing) at answersingenesis.org (Error: unknown archive URL)
  96. ^ Bishops' Conference of England and Wales (2005). The Gift of Scripture (PDF). Catholic Truth Society. ISBN 1-86082-323-8. Retrieved 2011-01-13.
  97. ^ Gledhill, Ruth (2005-10-05). "Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible". The Times. London.
  98. ^ But Genesis is not a science textbook, Answers in Genesis
  99. ^ Leeming, D.A. (1996). A Dictionary of Creation Myths. Oxford Paperbacks. ISBN 0195102754. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

References

  • Numbers, Ronald (November 30, 2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674023390. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Davis A. Young and Ralph F. Stearley (2008). The Bible, Rocks, and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic. ISBN 9780830828760.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Earth_creationism&oldid=419851418"