Faulty Logic of Creationists/IDers

[palmera]

While reading The God Delusion, I came upon a passage in which Dawkins aptly describes one of the major flaws of creationist/I.D. attacks against evolutionary theory. It centers on the "unfortunate" strategy of said opponents to point out gaps in scientific knowledge, then claim that Intelligent Design fills those gaps. For example, an IDer might take a particular part of an organism, claim that its irreducibly complex, and when a comprehensive answer is not immediately given, assert that evolutionary theory has been overthrown in favor of "God did it." There are many problems with this line of reasoning. First, it doesn't follow to argue that because a particular part of theory A fails, then theory B is correct. Furthermore, the driving force behind scientific inquiry is ignorance. Rather than assume B, that God did it through design, a scientist, driven by curiosity will take a critical approach and study said problem. Unfortunately, during the intermediate period, ID pamphlets will proclaim an organism to be IC (irreducibly complex) thus disproving evolution. As Dawkins states, "Intelligent Design -ID- is granted a Get Out of Jail Free card, a charmed immunity to the rigorous demands made of evolution."

This of course goes without saying that interjecting an intelligent supreme being into the mix is in itself faulty logic because it raises far more questions than it answers!

What do you think?

[Cathar1950]

The fact is it may seem like the universe is perfect for us but another universe with different systems may be perfect for another kind of life. What a lot of people keep forgeting is that on another planet they may not have water, that doesn't mean that there can't be life, just not life like ours. Infinite adaptivity is what Evolution and natural selection is all about.

I was just reading today in the paper that scientists think we may have killed life on Mars by either heat ot water and the life there might have been based on water and hydrogen-peroxide instead of salt and water. I jus hope it was not an advanced culture and they got pissed friends.

[Furrowed Brow]

The fact is it may seem like the universe is perfect for us but another universe with different systems may be perfect for another kind of life. What a lot of people keep forgeting is that on another planet they may not have water, that doesn't mean that there can't be life, just not life like ours. Infinite adaptivity is what Evolution and natural selection is all about.

I was just reading today in the paper that scientists think we may have killed life on Mars by either heat ot water and the life there might have been based on water and hydrogen-peroxide instead of salt and water. I jus hope it was not an advanced culture and they got pissed friends.

They might come to Earth looking for someone to do their highlights.

[achilles12604]

As I pointed out above, science can not prove, nor disprove God.

While most people will agree that it is nigh on impossible to disprove God's existence, what basis do you have for claiming science cannot prove his existence?

Luke

What I meant was that science is not able to reach out to God to examine him. When God reaches in, sure we can examine this. I actually have several posts regarding this including Jericho, origins and a modern day miracles post.

[Ncik666]

The way I see it is that people keep trying to apply human personality to everything they see. Its a mechanism installed so we understand and can problem solve with examples. But it went farther than it was needed, it goes from cursing the elevator door because it closed before you got there to cursing the "God" that created the Universe for being cruel. Nature and physics are impartial. The Universe is impartial. If we get swallowed by some random anomaly that is so rare we know nothing about it tommorow, leaving nothing but an empty space where Earth was, the Universe will go on as before. As it will forever.
That being said evolution is not by chance like a lot of IDers like to try and point out. Every living thing on Earth is the product of thousands of years of improvements meant to keep them alive to breed and propogate longer, hence why we have so many interacting species, its because they survive best through interaction.

[achilles12604]

The way I see it is that people keep trying to apply human personality to everything they see. Its a mechanism installed so we understand and can problem solve with examples. But it went farther than it was needed, it goes from cursing the elevator door because it closed before you got there to cursing the "God" that created the Universe for being cruel. Nature and physics are impartial. The Universe is impartial. If we get swallowed by some random anomaly that is so rare we know nothing about it tommorow, leaving nothing but an empty space where Earth was, the Universe will go on as before. As it will forever.
That being said evolution is not by chance like a lot of IDers like to try and point out. Every living thing on Earth is the product of thousands of years of improvements meant to keep them alive to breed and propogate longer, hence why we have so many interacting species, its because they survive best through interaction.

The argument offered by many Id'ers on this are that while species have undergone changes through many millions of years, those changes or mutations as they are more commonly called, are usually found to be harmful if not deadly to a species. So the Iders (or at least I) point out that for the set number of CORRECT and USEFUL mutations to occur, in a given amount of time multiplied by the number of mutations found per generation (usually less than .002% : source under origins thread), don't add up to the speed in which we see the development of life (roughly 150 million years : again see origins thread).

I am not against Evolution. I could even accept the thing as a whole with a few more discoveries which are universally accepted as being genuine. However this does not affect my position of ID. I like to apply ID to the origin of the universe more than evolution for this very reason. I see no reason why Evolution and the creation account (when read correctly) are not the same thing.

[palmera]

I am not against Evolution. I could even accept the thing as a whole with a few more discoveries which are universally accepted as being genuine. However this does not affect my position of ID. I like to apply ID to the origin of the universe more than evolution for this very reason. I see no reason why Evolution and the creation account (when read correctly) are not the same thing.

How can one possibly reconcile evolution and the creation account? I understand that many have tried to do so, but it simply cannot be done. First, you have to decide which creation account you would use. Second, you would have to account for the fact that nothing resembling evolution is found in the Bible. Third, you have to figure the Bible's creation account in with the Babylonian from which it is derived. Fourth, how do you square the age of the earth presented by science, and the age of the earth presented by the Bible? The list goes on. When read correctly, the creation accounts of the Bible cannot, and must not, be taken as factually true- it's purpose is not to be a history book but an account of the religious experience with God of the communities which produced it.

Further, if you take evolution to its logical end, there is no room for God in the equation. Trying to reconcile the Bible and Evolution is misguided at best, dishonest at worst.

[achilles12604]

I am not against Evolution. I could even accept the thing as a whole with a few more discoveries which are universally accepted as being genuine. However this does not affect my position of ID. I like to apply ID to the origin of the universe more than evolution for this very reason. I see no reason why Evolution and the creation account (when read correctly) are not the same thing.

How can one possibly reconcile evolution and the creation account? I understand that many have tried to do so, but it simply cannot be done. First, you have to decide which creation account you would use. Second, you would have to account for the fact that nothing resembling evolution is found in the Bible. Third, you have to figure the Bible's creation account in with the Babylonian from which it is derived. Fourth, how do you square the age of the earth presented by science, and the age of the earth presented by the Bible? The list goes on. When read correctly, the creation accounts of the Bible cannot, and must not, be taken as factually true- it's purpose is not to be a history book but an account of the religious experience with God of the communities which produced it.

Further, if you take evolution to its logical end, there is no room for God in the equation. Trying to reconcile the Bible and Evolution is misguided at best, dishonest at worst.

Reconciling the two is very simple. Simply cut out the bogus arguments and compare what is left.

For example the single greatest issue in reconciling the two ideas are hard line fundi Christians who insist that Genesis should be read literally. However if one simply realizes that much of the bible is written in metaphorical language and poetic form, then reading the creation account as a tribute to God rather than a textbook become easy. Then the two can match easily.

This is just an example.

[McCulloch]

Reconciling the two is very simple. Simply cut out the bogus arguments and compare what is left.

For example the single greatest issue in reconciling the two ideas are hard line fundi Christians who insist that Genesis should be read literally. However if one simply realizes that much of the bible is written in metaphorical language and poetic form, then reading the creation account as a tribute to God rather than a textbook become easy. Then the two can match easily.

Since it can be done easily, why don't you humour us and do it? Match what Genesis says about creation with what has been learned from evolution and cosmology.

[achilles12604]

Reconciling the two is very simple. Simply cut out the bogus arguments and compare what is left.

For example the single greatest issue in reconciling the two ideas are hard line fundi Christians who insist that Genesis should be read literally. However if one simply realizes that much of the bible is written in metaphorical language and poetic form, then reading the creation account as a tribute to God rather than a textbook become easy. Then the two can match easily.

Since it can be done easily, why don't you humour us and do it? Match what Genesis says about creation with what has been learned from evolution and cosmology.

Gee. Would you like me to take the litteralist view, or simply acknowledge that the Genesis creation account was probably a poetic tribute to God written by individuals living WAY before modern science?

[achilles12604]

Reconciling the two is very simple. Simply cut out the bogus arguments and compare what is left.

For example the single greatest issue in reconciling the two ideas are hard line fundi Christians who insist that Genesis should be read literally. However if one simply realizes that much of the bible is written in metaphorical language and poetic form, then reading the creation account as a tribute to God rather than a textbook become easy. Then the two can match easily.

Since it can be done easily, why don't you humour us and do it? Match what Genesis says about creation with what has been learned from evolution and cosmology.

Oh how perfect!!!!!!!!

I was just reading thought my e-mails when I came across this one. I immediately thought of your demand that I reconcile Genesis with Science. Since you seem to have missed the now DOZENS of posts where I explain that Genesis does not demand a literal interpretation and have continued to force me into that box which I neither profess nor accept, I will present this article, written by another as my own.

It is really fairly close to what I hold to be true, with just a couple minor adjustments. It is long so read what you want.

The Testimony of a Formerly Young Earth Missionary

Dr. Joshua Zorn

©1997 by the American Scientific Affiliation

An Urgent Appeal for Humility in Addressing the Questions of the Age of the Earth and Related Issues from the Mission Field to Pastors and Leaders of the Sending Churches, especially in North America!

How I Came to Believe That the Earth Is Young

I became a Christian in 1973 at the age of thirteen when my Sunday school teacher took four lessons to explain the plan of salvation to us. Although I had attended church (in a mainline denomination) all my life, this was the first time I had heard that the blood of Christ shed at the cross could wash away my sins. I immediately accepted this good news that salvation was by grace through faith and not by works. I began a new life in Christ which has now led me to work as a church planter in the former Soviet Union.

A few years after my conversion, as I was traveling across the country with a busload of Boy Scouts on our way to Philmont Scout Reservation in New Mexico, I picked up a small book at a truck stop in Nebraska. It presented a radical view of earth history from a Christian perspective and I was fascinated. After returning home I quickly found related literature in my local Christian bookstore and I became an enthusiastic devotee of young earth creation science (YECS) as promoted by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR).

As the son of a physics professor, I had a love for science and as a naive and enthusiastic young believer, my mind was fertile ground for the ideas of this movement. As I look back upon those days, I now understand that we Christians were growing up in an environment hostile to belief. There was a pervasive sense that most intellectuals had abandoned the faith and given license to our generation to disregard the moral teachings of Scripture. Yet we knew that we had found something wonderful in Christianity. If Christianity were true and the world were against Christianity, we would have to oppose the world, especially the doctrines which had resulted in the decline of faith in the western world. Of course, a thinking person could not reject science in total, but the YECS people were real scientists, accepting things like the genetic code, Newton's Laws, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. They used them to overthrow the great evil of philosophical naturalism which, the YECS people were quick to point out, had given rise to biblical criticism, secular humanism, and the theory of evolution.

Most people believe what they want to believe so the YECS arguments quickly persuaded me and a certain pride took root in my heart. Although virtually the entire academic world disagreed with our views, I assumed that we, not they, were correct. But pride, even if rooted in the correctness of Christian belief, is sin. This sin most often took the form of criticism of "all those stupid atheists, Bible critics, secular humanists, and evolutionists." I slandered them repeatedly by telling others that they were so biased against belief that they purposely distorted the evidence to support the old earth and evolutionist positions. I now publicly repent of this attitude which I held for several years and call upon others to examine their hearts and motives. It is true that in Christ we have a wisdom that the world lacks, but that wisdom expresses itself in a good life, and by deeds done in humility (James 3:13­17). Christian wisdom certainly does not mean we have a greater or more accurate scientific knowledge of the universe than the experts. It is also true that many scientists are biased against Christianity, but almost no one knowingly distorts evidence to disprove the Gospel. I know, because many scientists are my friends.

As an evangelical Christian, I viewed Scripture as authoritative. Yet Scripture in the hand of a fervent believer with a certain agenda (such as the YECSers) can be distorted. Thus I believed what they taught and was not exposed to other evangelical points of view. Of course I did not seek them out--I thought I had all the answers. But the church leadership could have addressed these issues from a more balanced perspective. Many pastors avoid controversy and thereby water the seeds of a spiritual crisis in the lives of YECSers who will be moving on to the university. For whatever reason, our Christian bookstores and radio stations rarely provide other literature or viewpoints.
College Years as a Young Earth Enthusiast

As there was no access to other Christian points of view, I probably would have remained a YECSer all my life had I not gone on for further studies. I sailed through my undergraduate years at a liberal arts college with a major in mathematics, never encountering in class sufficient evidence to shake my belief in a young earth or rabid opposition to evolution. (I took no classes in biology or geology). In fact, I took the initiative to hold a public lecture entitled "Darwin--Was He Wrong?" to which I invited all my friends as well as the campus at large. I had answers to all the feeble scientific objections that my fellow students could raise (which demonstrates, I think, how few people really have their beliefs founded on facts as opposed to indoctrination) and felt that I had carried the day. Fortunately for me, no faculty showed up!
The Collapse of a False Belief

I do remember one moment of doubt and humility as an undergraduate. I was walking through a university library looking at shelf after shelf of books on geology. Could all these educated people really be so completely wrong?

By the time I entered graduate school, I had discovered Christian geologist Davis Young's book, Christianity and the Age of the Earth. I had read his first book, Creation and The Flood, a few years before, and, although it sowed seeds of doubt about the young earth, I had not changed my views. But as I read this book, I saw that the scientific arguments for a young earth were completely untenable. I found that all the other Christian graduate students had problems with YECS geological arguments. And so, although it was painful, I asked myself if I wanted to continue to believe in something that is quite plainly wrong. I decided I did not, and so rejected the young earth position.
The Crisis

But rejection of the young earth was not only a matter of science. It affected my faith and the core of my life. I believed that the Scriptures taught a young earth and was seeing that the scientific method led to a different conclusion. Worse yet, I was aware that if the earth is old, maybe the theory of evolution is true. Did this mean that the Bible was wrong and perhaps my entire belief in the Gospel was misplaced? I went through a period of deep soul seeking, clinging to the Lord although I could not make sense of Scripture and science. In the end, I agreed to follow the scientific evidence regarding the age of the earth, be open-minded but skeptical toward evidence for evolution, and not abandon the faith (which I was convinced was true for many other reasons). I just confessed that I did not have all the answers on how to interpret Genesis. I had read Davis Young's interpretation, but was so prejudiced against his views that I did not accept them.
Evaluation of YECS Science

Twelve years have gone by since I abandoned the young earth viewpoint. As I continued to study (toward a Ph.D. in mathematics with applications in population genetics), I unfortunately saw argument after argument of the YECSers crumble in the face of evidence, both new and old. The list is in the hundreds and goes far beyond the issue of the age of the earth. The last straw was when evidence forced the ICR to back down on its claim of overlapping man and dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy river bed in Texas. The "man" tracks--it turns out--are really poorly preserved dinosaur tracks. Since that day I have no longer put any faith in scientific arguments put forth by the ICR and only rarely read their publications. It is truly unfortunate that such well-meaning Christians who share with me both a high regard for Scripture and evangelism, have made so many scientific errors. Although it pains me to part company with Christian brethren, I believe they are doing more harm than good and urge you to be skeptical of their science.

For those of you wanting to see the science, YECS arguments have been refuted in many places by both Christian and secular authors. For starters, let me recommend Creation and Time by former astrophysicist and evangelism pastor, Dr. Hugh Ross. In chapter ten of this book, Ross refutes ten typical arguments for a young earth. In chapter nine, several astronomical evidences for an ancient universe are presented. The books by Young mentioned above, and the books by Newman and Wonderly mentioned in the bibliography below, refute more YECS arguments and give additional scientific reasons to believe in an old universe and earth. All these authors are conservative evangelicals with advanced training in science. A secular critique of YECS is Kitcher's book, Abusing Science.

Besides the science, it is instructive to understand something of the history of the YECS movement and how it spread out of Seventh Day Adventism into American Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. The history of the movement has been meticulously documented in the book, The Creationists, by Numbers listed in the bibliography below.
What Does Scripture Say?

I don't expect pastors or church leaders to be impressed by all the scientific evidence unless there are also good hermeneutical reasons for abandoning the YECS position and a literal reading of the opening chapters of Genesis. As my prejudice wore off over the years, I began to discover a whole new world of evangelical interpretations as well as persuasive arguments against some aspects of the literalist reading of Genesis 1-3.

For me it was surprising to find out that very few of the early Jewish interpreters or church fathers held to the six consecutive twenty-four-hour day interpretation of Genesis 1. In Creation and Time, Ross has documented that Philo, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandra, Origin, Augustine, Basil, and others all held to other interpretations.

In the same book (chapter 17), Ross goes on to discuss the results of a 1982 summit of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy which gathered to discuss, among other things, the matter of the ages of the universe and the earth. After hearing papers representing various interpretations of Genesis and after deliberating over these issues for many hours, this group of theologians and other scholars concluded that belief in six consecutive twenty-four-hour creation days is nonessential to belief in inerrancy. Everyone present except Henry Morris signed the concluding statement, thus demonstrating the isolation of the extreme position of the ICR. See the paper by Gleason Archer, Professor of Old Testament and Semitics at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, who concludes that "Entirely apart from any findings of modern science or challenges of contemporary scientism, the twenty-four-hour theory was never correct and should never have been believed."

Ross's book contains endorsements by several other prominent theologians and Christian leaders. These include Norman Geisler, Dean of Southern Evangelical Seminary; Ralph Winter, General Director of the U.S. Center for World Mission; Don Richardson, author of Peace Child and Eternity in their Heart; Earl Radmacher, Chancellor of Western Seminary; Walter Kaiser Jr., President of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; and Stan Oaks, Director of Christian Leadership Ministries (Faculty Ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ). Other works which allow for an old earth include Francis Schaeffer's No Final Conflict and Evangelical Affirmations, edited by Kenneth Kantzer and Carl F. H. Henry.

The interpretation which I prefer is described in French theologian Henri Blocher's In the Beginning, published by IVP. For an excellent of discussion of how to relate modern science and Genesis, see Genesis Today by Dr. Ernest Lucas. Many more works are listed in the bibliography.
Evolution

Many are afraid that belief in an old earth opens the door to belief in evolution. It is not my purpose in this essay to discuss at length how Christians should respond to Darwin's claims. But I would like to make a few points:

(1) Many arguments put forth by Christians against evolution do not stand up to scrutiny and this does not help our cause.
(2) The discovery of the antiquity of the earth was made well before Darwin's time (mostly by evangelical Christians) and so did not and does not depend upon accepting evolution. The idea that "atheistic geologists twisted the data to get an old earth so as to support evolution" is wildly inaccurate.
(3) Most Christians who opposed evolution until Whitcomb and Morris wrote The Genesis Flood in 1961 did not believe in a young earth. These include John William Dawson, William Jennings Bryan, and Harry Rimmer. See The Creationists by Numbers.
(4) I believe there is still room to doubt the scientific scenarios for the origin of life and macroevolution, although this must be done with care and in humility.
(5) Many old earthers remain opposed to evolution--some for scientific, and some for biblical, reasons.
(6) There are many sincere Christians who do accept most or all of the scientific theory (as opposed to the naturalistic philosophy) of evolution. We could call them "evolutionary creationists."
(7) Many Christians who otherwise are positive toward creation through evolution, nevertheless believe in the special creation of Adam.
(8) However harmful we think someone's view is, as Christians we must not slander (say negative and untrue things about someone) and we must speak the truth in love.
(9) The word "evolution" means different things to different people so we must be careful not to misrepresent others. Some use "evolution" to mean "life developed by random accidents and natural selection and so life is meaningless." If this is what is meant, then all Christians are opposed to "evolution."
(10) Anyone who has told their child that "God made you" has affirmed that God can make (create) through natural processes. Thus "creation" does not require direct miraculous intervention. Processes, such as mutation and selection (i.e., "evolution"), are not necessarily in opposition to "creation."


Lessons from My Life

For those of you who really believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis that requires a young earth, my appeal is to recognize that this flies in the face of an enormous amount of scientific evidence which essentially all scientists, Christian or otherwise, accept. In addition, there are hermeneutical problems with that view as pointed out, for example, in Archer and Blocher's works listed below. As you teach your interpretation of Genesis, be humble enough to mention that there are many scientific problems, that the ICR position is not accepted by most evangelical Christians with scientific training, and that there are other interpretations. It is sinful (slanderous and untrue) to teach that all who believe in an old earth are liberals who don't care about evangelism. It is precisely because I do believe in evangelism that I am writing this paper! I would plead with you to earnestly seek the Lord for a renewal and deepening of your faith and then have the boldness to begin to study other evangelical views, such as those found in the bibliography. Cling to the Lord and look for support from others who have studied these things. Pastors, who have made the effort to learn something about the issues believers influenced by scientific knowledge may face, will be more prepared to equip the saints for ministry in this generation.
Christianity Is Not in Opposition to Science

In our everyday lives, we constantly apply and even trust in the results of scientific research. The technologies to build an airplane, create antibiotics, or evangelize distant peoples via Christian radio all depend on the accuracy of our understanding of how the world works as discovered by the scientific method. Thus Christians have gained much from the sciences. Science continues to be so successful at generating knowledge in its proper fields that it is unwise for so much of the church to be so against certain results of science.

It may be objected that the examples given above are from the more exact laboratory sciences and not the historical sciences. While it is true that the results of the historical sciences are often tentative because we cannot go back in time to observe directly what happened, many of the results are quite secure and have impacted our lives. Success in locating oil deposits, an understanding of where earthquakes will occur, our understanding of historical passages in the Bible, a deeper understanding of human and animal behavior, and the powerful argument for the existence of a Creator based on the Big Bang (see The Creator and the Cosmos in the bibliography below) all depend on the accuracy of the results of the historical sciences such as historical geology, plate tectonics, paleontology, archaeology, anthropology, history, cosmology, and behavioral ecology.

Do not fall into the trap of thinking the age of the earth is just a matter of "trusting God's Word" versus "trusting science." Christians need to, and every day do, trust both. The common error of rejecting many well-established results of science in favor of a certain biblical interpretation is not a valid Christian position. In the end, the truth will be a harmony which rejects neither the teachings of Scripture nor the well-established results of science. The results of science (properly interpreted) should never challenge the authority of Scripture, but they may cause us to reexamine our interpretation of Scripture. This is what I am pleading with young earthers to do.

The Christian position must be that all truth is God's truth and that we have both general revelation (nature) and special revelation (the Bible) as sources of truth. Science clearly has its limits in that, for example, it cannot tell you if adultery is sinful or not. The Bible clearly has its limits in that we cannot learn calculus or quantum mechanics from its pages. The only possible trouble comes in those relatively rare instances when both the Bible and science seem to have something to say, such as historical questions about the nation of Israel or the creation of life on this planet.

While Christians may not always be happy with the results of science, we should respect scientists and oppose scientific theory only rarely, cautiously, and in humility, if at all. We should also check our interpretations of Scripture to see if anything has been overlooked. It may help to consult with believing scientists to understand how others have dealt with the issue. If there remain stubborn problems, we should have the courage to admit that we don't have an answer, but in faith, believe that when we know in full, the answer will be clear. Ultimately, our confidence in Scripture should not rest on having a complete harmony between science and the Bible because we simply do not know enough to complete the harmony.
Science in the Service of Atheism

A brief word must be said about the danger of the anti-Christian propaganda being distributed by certain atheistic scientists. Yes, it is true that many atheists try to make the case that science has disproved certain Christian doctrines. However, the case is very weak. In dealing with these kinds of arguments, we must learn to separate the wheat from the chaff. Often, the scientific facts are solid, but their philosophical interpretation is anti-Christian and unproven. While confusing the issues for many, these arguments do not mean that Christians should oppose science. However, we must be on guard to oppose anti-Christian philosophies masquerading in the name of science.

There is also an unwarranted anti-supernatural bias in academia and elsewhere which causes many to dismiss certain Christian doctrines without a fair consideration. Christians, in reaction, tend not to trust academics and science. This bias must be exposed (see Phillip Johnson's Reason in the Balance) and opposed. As Christians we do believe in miracles, such as the resurrection of Christ, which go beyond scientific explanation. But our belief in occasional miracles is no reason for us to oppose science as such.
Negative Spiritual Implications of YECS

The worst aspect of YECS teaching is that it creates a nearly insurmountable barrier between the educated world and the church. Certainly God in his sovereignty has allowed some to be persuaded to believe in Christ through the arguments of YECSers. But how many more have not accepted the Gospel because of the unnecessary demand that converts believe that the world is no more than 10,000 years old? And how many have unnecessarily gone through a crisis of faith similar to that which I described above? How many have chosen to give up their faith altogether rather than to accept scientific nonsense or a major reinterpretation of Scripture? How much have we dishonored our Lord by slandering scientists and their reputation? How much have we sinned against Christian brothers holding another opinion by naming them "dangerous" and "compromisers"? How much responsibility do we bear for having taught others (James 3:1) things that probably are not even true? Each must search his own heart.
A Call for Action

Pastors need to rethink these issues as outlined above and teach a responsible Christian viewpoint with all humility. Seminaries need to reconsider what they are teaching this generation of pastors and perhaps include a basic science course in their curriculum. Christian writers need to create materials for Sunday school, bedtime stories, home educators, and Christian schools that will not give our children an antiscientific bias, setting them up for a crisis of faith later in life. Christian radio and TV stations need to invite qualified speakers to wrestle with these issues in a responsible way. Publishers need to have courage to publish unpopular viewpoints, if they are consistent with Christian faith. Bookstores need to be willing to sell Christian books critical of YECS that promote other views. People who are qualified to speak need to be willing to follow the Lord's call to become publicly involved, despite the persecution which will come (from well-meaning brothers in the Lord). Finally, missionaries and evangelists need to get materials expressing other viewpoints translated to oppose the virtual monopoly YECS teaching has overseas.

As I write this paper, I see YECS literature becoming more and more widely distributed in the growing churches in my corner of the former Soviet Union. We are sowing the seeds of a major crisis which will make the job of world evangelism even harder than it is already. Lord, give us wisdom!
Notes and Bibliography

Note #1: The purpose of this bibliography is to provide access to a variety of evangelical opinions consistent with an old earth. Inclusion of a work in the bibliography does not imply my endorsement of all that is written in that work. In fact, as I am overseas, I have not even read some of the works listed, but am including them on the strength of good recommendations or book reviews.
Note #2: There are several references to the Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute (IBRI) which is informally associated with Biblical Theological Seminary. They have produced several items related to the age of the earth besides the ones we have listed. Address: P.O. Box 423, Hatfield PA, 19440.
Note #3: An organization of mostly old earth Christians in the sciences is the American Scientific Affiliation, P.O. Box 668, Ipswich, MA 01938-0668. Phone (978)356-5656. E-mail: asa@asa3.org. WWW: http://www.asa3.org/.
Archer, G. "A Response to The Trustworthiness of Scripture in Areas Relating to Natural Science." In Radmacher E. and Preus R., ed. Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Academic Books, Zondervan. 1984. Gives biblical reasons why this scholar cannot accept the twenty-four-hour days interpretation of Genesis 1.
Blocher, H. In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1984. My preferred interpretation of Genesis 1­3.
Fischer, D. The Origins Solution. Minneapolis, MN: Fairway Press Publishers, 1996. See www.orisol.com/orisol.html. A serious, creative, and well-researched attempt to harmonize the facts of science with a very literal reading of Genesis.
Grudem, W. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994. Grudem's humble open-mindedness, summarized on page 308, is a good example of how someone with young earth tendencies may want to address the issue.
Johnson, P. Darwin on Trial (2d ed.). Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Sets forth the scientific and philosophical reasons why many scholars are not yet convinced of the fully mechanistic molecules-to-man theory of evolution.

-------- Reason in the Balance. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995. A critique of philosophical naturalism.
Kantzer, K. and Henry, C., eds. Evangelical Affirmations. Grand Rapids: Academic Books, Zondervan, 1990. Chapter 10 ("Modern Science") is of interest.
Kitcher, P. Abusing Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1982. A secular critique of YECS.
Lucas, E. Genesis Today: Genesis and the Questions of Science. London: Scripture Union, 1989. Excellent discussion of all the major issues.
Morton, G. Foundation, Fall, and Flood. Dallas, TX: DMD Publishing, 1995.
See www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm. A very well-researched, original,
and controversial attempt to harmonize Genesis and modern science.
Newman, R. and Ecklemann, H. Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth. 3rd printing. Hatfield, PA: IBRI, 1989.
Numbers, R. The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. A meticulous and enlightening history of the young earth creationist movement.
Rademacher, E. and Preus, R., eds. Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible. Proceedings from the ICBI Summit II, 1982, in Chicago, IL. Grand Rapids: Academic Books, Zondervan, 1984. This work contains a key paper by Walter L. Bradley and Roger Olsen entitled "The Trustworthiness of Scripture in Areas Relating to Natural Science" as well as Gleason Archer's supportive response.
Ross, H. The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God. 2d edition. Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1995. An argument for the existence of God based on recent astronomical research.
---------- Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy. Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1994. Interprets the "days" in Genesis as ages. Anti-evolution. Excellent discussion of the history and tragedy of the controversy.
Schaeffer, F. No Final Conflict: The Bible Without Error in All That it Affirms. Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1975. Schaeffer does not take a position on the age of the earth and claims that from a study of the Bible one could hold either opinion.
Van Till, H. J. The Fourth Day: What the Bible and the Heavens Are Telling Us about the Creation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. A controversial book which claims that there is no biblical reason to oppose creation through evolutionary processes.
Weister, J. The Genesis Connection. Hatfield, PA: IBRI. 1983. A survey of scientific data and theorizing on origins showing that the data are consistent with an old earth interpretation of Scripture.
Wonderly, D. God's Time-Records in Ancient Sediments. Flint, MI: Crystal Press, 1977. This book contains specific examples of non-radiometric evidences for great age. It is now available from IBRI.
---------- Neglect of Geologic Data: Sedimentary Strata Compared with Young Earth Creationist Writings. Revised. Hatfield, PA: IBRI, 1993.
Young, D. Creation and the Flood: An Alternative to Flood Geology and Theistic Evolution. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977. Argues for a day-age, anti-evolution position.
---------- Christianity and the Age of the Earth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982. The book which convinced me that the earth is old.
---------- The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extra-biblical Evidence. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.