Earth is very old, and anyone who tells you otherwise is practicing bad science. If they’re “young-Earth creationists” or “flood geologists,” they’re practicing bad theology to boot. In a nutshell, that is the message of The Bible, Rocks and Time by Davis A. Young and Ralph F. Stearley, professors of geology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. (Young holds emeritus status.) Both are evangelical scholars in the Reformed tradition with a high view of Scripture and a commitment to Christian orthodoxy.
Young and Stearley divide their book into four parts. Part One outlines the history of Christian scholarship about the age of Earth from the patristic era to the modern period, concluding that orthodox Christian scholars have been able to accept Earth’s great age without abandoning either their faith or the Bible’s infallibility. Part Two examines the issues at stake in how Christians interpret Genesis 1, concluding that the text itself does not require us to interpret its days as solar days, instead preferring a “literary framework” interpretation of that chapter. Part Three details the mainstream geological case for Earth’s age based on stratigraphy, fossils, sedimentation, the rate at which igneous and metamorphic rocks form, and radiometric dating. They conclude that flood geology’s alternative explanations of the empirical data are unconvincing. Part Four examines philosophical issues related to (1) the debate between young-Earth “catastrophists” and mainstream geological “uniformitarians” and (2) the debate among Christians as to best apologetic practices vis-à-vis scientific issues. Regarding (1), the authors conclude that young-Earthers caricature mainstream commitment to uniformitarianism, which—by the way—makes room for large scale, even global catastrophes. Regarding (2), the authors argue that hitching Christian apologetics to young-Earth science entangles Christians in bad science and therefore bad apologetics.
For those readers who, like myself, were educated in philosophy (or other humanities), the arguments advanced in Part Three make for tough reading, mainly because of the specialized jargon of the geological community. However, Young and Stearley make these arguments as clearly as they can by defining terms and providing pictorial and/or graphic illustrations of relevant points. The historical, biblical, and philosophical parts of the book were, for me, easier to understand.
Although the argument Young and Stearley advance against flood geologists is hard-hitting, its tone is far less confrontational than my brief summary lets on. The authors’ tone throughout is gracious, acknowledging what good scholarship there is in the flood geologist community, noting changes in young-Earth arguments, and interacting with those arguments at a scholarly level. The Bible, Rocks and Time is, as far as I know, the best single-volume refutation of young-Earth creationism currently on the market.
P.S. If you found my review helpful, please vote “Yes” on my Amazon.com review page.
GeorgePWood.com 
Phillip Johnson [“Darwin on Trial’] says naturalists define words like “evolution” and “science” in such a way that naturalism is true by definition. He said in World magazine: “Evolutionary science is based on naturalism and draws philosophical conclusions to that base. That’s why any theistic evolution is inherently superficial. It leads people into naturalistic thinking, and they don’t realize it.” (Nov. 22, 1997, p.13)
*
Evolution: The Creation Myth of Our Culture
http://www.trueorigin.org/evomyth01.asp
The Bible, Rocks and Time doesn’t address biological evolution. It deals only with geology. And for good reason: It is possible to be both an old-Earth creationist and an anti-evolutionist, e.g., Hugh Ross and the team at Reasons to Believe.
See:
http://creation.com/review-young-and-stearley-bible-rocks-and-time
http://creation.com/refuting-campbell-young-pca-modern-reformation
Based on Oard’s review, I almost feel that Oard and I read two entirely different books. Young and Stearley dealt with up-to-date YEC arguments (as can be seen through the footnotes). And while Oard thinks they elide the distinction between evidence and interpretation, I found them to patiently lay out the evidence, explain the reasons for mainstream geological interpretations, and show how YEC arguments do not account for either all the evidence or for evidence contrary to their position.
I have read many books about creation, evolution, science, and the bible. My problem with all the books/arguments made on the side of an old earth is it does not address an essential issue for me. The Bible clearly states “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.” Romans 5:12. If in fact we take the Bible at it’s words and the fact that death did not enter the world until Adam sinned, how then can we say that there was anything more than the literal days?
Both Genesis and Romans speak of the death of humans (“for all sinned”), but I’m unaware of any biblical promise of eternal life for animals.
Please elaborate. I’m not following the logic of your statement.
Joey:
Here is the young-Earth argument from death in syllogistic form:
1. The Bible teaches that death entered the world through the human being Adam.
2. Whatever the Bible teaches is true.
3. Therefore, it is true that death entered the world through the human being Adam.
But…
4. Evolutionary theory teaches that living beings died before human beings walked the earth.
5. Either (3) or (4) is true.
6. (3) is true.
7. (4) is false.
8. Therefore, living beings did not die before human beings walked the earth.
The problem with this argument is simply that Genesis 2 and Romans 5 teach that human death entered the world through Adam’s sin–more literally, his sin and ours (“for all sinned”). It is silent on whether plants and animals died before Adam’s sin. Or rather, it is silent on whether animals died. God gave plants to Adam and Eve and animals for food. The only way you can eat a plant is to kill it. Therefore, the Bible itself teaches (or implies) that plant death entered the world through Adam’s sin. My guess is that it implies animal death occurred too. At the very least, there is no promise of eternal life for animals.
The problem with the young-Earth argument from death is that it broadens the biblical judgment of death to human sinners to encompass all living beings, a broadening that seems absurd to me. Plants died before Adam fell. So did bacteria. So did animals, unless you believe that God created all animals–and not just human beings–to experience eternal life.
Now, perhaps the young-Earth argument from death could be narrowed in this way: Yes, non-human living beings died before the fall. But evolution teaches that human beings died before the fall. Therefore, since evolution contradicts the Bible (see [3] and [4] above), evolution is false. But I’m not sure this works either. One might, for the sake of argument, grant that Adam’s hominid ancestors died before the fall, but nevertheless argue that Adam was the first true human being who, as the image of God, was extended the promise of eternal life. In that case, ADam’s hominid ancestors were not true human beings, and therefore their deaths fall under the category of “living beings (non-human)” rather than “living human beings.”
Does that clarify the logic of my statement?
George Paul
Yes, thank you.
I’m not sure the Bible would use the term “life” and “death” for plants and bacteria in the way that we do. Rather, “the life is in the blood.” Assuming that the term “life” and “death” could apply to plants, you don’t actually kill plants to eat them; rather, you eat the fruit of the plant. Presumably, in a pre-fall world, fruit could be plucked from plants that never die.
The fact that God doesn’t offer “redemptive” eternal life to animals (or plants, if you want to include them) the way he does for men doesn’t necessarily affirm that those animals wouldn’t have lived eternally prior to the fall, does it? Would God be obligated to offer them redemption after the fall? Would he have to spell out in Genesis that they had eternal life prior to the fall?
Also, I’m not sure why animals (and perhaps plants) dying due to the sin of Adam would be unreasonable. Isn’t the curse upon all of earth? Doesn’t the Bible talk about creation “groaning”?