9 responses to “The Best Single-Volume Refutation of Young-Earth Creationism Currently on the Market”

1. 

   David

   September 7, 2011

   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

   Reply
   1. 

      georgepwood

      September 7, 2011

      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.

      Reply
2. 

   David

   September 7, 2011

   See:

   http://creation.com/review-young-and-stearley-bible-rocks-and-time

   http://creation.com/refuting-campbell-young-pca-modern-reformation

   Reply
   1. 

      georgepwood

      September 7, 2011

      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.

      Reply
3. 

   Tausha Bacorn

   September 8, 2011

   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?

   Reply
   1. 

      georgepwood

      September 9, 2011

      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.

      Reply
      1. 

         Joey

         September 9, 2011

         Please elaborate. I’m not following the logic of your statement.

4. 

   georgepwood

   September 9, 2011

   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

   Reply
   1. 

      Joey

      September 9, 2011

      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”?

      Reply