Shaun Doyle’s article recounts what he interprets as evidence for younger earth than progressive creation sources suggest. He does this by arguing against certain scientific methods that dissuade the timeframe as it is depicted in the Bible. Doyle analyzes that many scientific processes object that the formation of many things in nature could have occurred during the Biblical time frame following radiometric dating, rock and fossil formation, as well as distant starlight. In response, he cites other scientific findings that do support younger earth, such as genetic entropy, the decay of the earth’s magnetic field, helium diffusion, and the faint young sun paradox. This article offers alternate arguments for the interpretation of young earth perspectives based on scientific findings, which I can introduce as an opposing view based on similar information in the comparison.
In an article analyzing Genesis and creation from a historical perspective, Andrew Kulikovsky employs a method that assesses historical evolutions of doctrines and theological factors as part of the interpretation. He also notes that while this process notes these changes, he does not apply them to the original Biblical text he uses to explore his view of young earth and Genesis. His paper outlines the major views on creation that have persisted throughout human history, including the influence of naturalism, science, evolution theories, and other Biblical interpretations. Kulikovsky’s perspective is essential to the paper as it takes a thorough observation of the topic of creation from a neutral perspective that can analyze both sides of the comparison.
In ‘Coming to Grips with Genesis’ by Terry Mortneson and Thane H. Ury, the young earth approach is much more accepting of certain facts discovered by scientists from nature while still retaining their belief in the traditional Genesis interpretation. The authors argue that they acknowledge that religion is largely driven by large input into one’s faith, which requires accepting many theoretical ideas based only on faith as well. However, they argue that non-Christians or old earth creationists must also suspend some belief in our current knowledge to believe that the earth is multiple billions of years old. Mortenson and Ury cite aspects such as abiogenic origins and hypothetical age estimates are also not completely proven and require a certain amount of belief. While a strictly young earth interpretation, this book allows for more open dialogue concerning the issue of Genesis 1 which can bridge some of the comparisons in my paper.
Hugh Ross’ ‘A Matter of Days focuses on a non-traditional stance concerning Genesis 1. Ross, as an old-earth creationist and a concordist, illustrates how the world and the Bible can be interpreted through the scope of the day-age perspective. The center of his belief states that instances in which the Bible and science overlap, are an area of agreement. Ross upholds this belief and cites texts from within the Bible that make mention of nature, which proves the relationship between the sciences, as interpretations of nature, and the Bible to be reliable and understandable. He suggests that his thesis of old-earth creationism is a perspective that would allow for consistency with Biblical interpretation, which would result in increased unity. Ross’ perspective will be used as a strong contrast to new-earth theologies that disagree on many fundamental levels with concordist values.
Snelling et al., argue that while the dating methods to assess the age of the earth are varied and plenty, their reliability can be put into question. The authors of the ‘Evidence for a Young Earth and Creation’ article suggest that outside God, most methods to accurately determine the age of the earth are unreliable. This is primarily because their interpretation states that God is a witness that does not lie, has collected all the evidence that can exist, and is the only true option in regards to understanding the start of the universe. As such, like many Young Earth believers, the authors of the article cite the specific history of the earth from the bible as the superior resource for this dilemma. This article is essential for my paper as it directly opposes the theories posed by Ross and other scholars who adopt the day-age interpretation.
References
Doyle, Shaun. “Evidence for young-earth creationism.” Journal of Creation (2015).
Kulikovsky, Andrew. “Creation and Genesis: A Historical Survey.” Creation Research Society Quarterly (2007).
Mortenson, Terry and Thane H. Ury. Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2012.
Ross, Hugo. A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy. Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2015.
Snelling, Andrew A., Menton, David, Faulkner, Danny R., and Georgia Purdom. “Evidence for a Young Earth and Creation.” The New Answers Book 4, (2019).