Young Earth Creation: A Sad Day for Unwavering Dogmatism

Ken Ham, staunch Young Earth Creationist, has recently written a blog post highlighting a recent position change taken by the Assemblies of God (AG) denomination (HT: Ron's Bloviating). Ham takes issue with the AG for revising their earlier held position, sympathetic to a Young Earth position, for that of one which allows for Old Earth belief as well. For the record, I have grown up in the AG denomination and have been partial to the Old Earth Creation model, despite their earlier stance, since I was in elementary school (the 1960s). In A Sad Day for the Assemblies of God Denomination, Ham writes,

The general presbytery of the Assemblies of God (AG) denomination, in session August 9–11, 2010, adopted a revised statement on “The Doctrine of Creation.” Here is an excerpt from the official AG position paper, that opens the door to evolution and millions of years, and the various compromise positions on Genesis held by some in the church (such as gap theory, day age, progressive creation, theistic evolution, etc)

Of particular concern, to Ham, is the statement by the AG,

The advance of scientific research, particularly in the last few centuries, has raised many questions about the interpretation of the Genesis accounts of creation.

evidently because he connects such reasoning as equivalent to succumbing to the lie told by the serpent in Genesis 3, in which he tempted Eve to doubt God's Word. By comparing a 1977 statement, from the AG, Ham contrasts a previous belief that a "natural reading" of the Genesis 1 creation account results in an understanding that the account refers to consecutive 24 hour solar days. His concern seems to be that any acceptance of data, from scientific research, that points towards a billions of years old universe, is tantamount to the doubting of God's Word, which he understands - nay, demands - to state otherwise. Ham writes,

The AG with its August statement is now saying we have to take the fallible ideas of fallible humans and use these in authority over the Word of God.

I applaud Ham's concern, which is ultimately driven by a desire to keep Christians from falling prey to worldly wisdom, yet I seriously question the dogmatic stance he has taken. He posits that a Young Earth interpretation of the creation accounts, found in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, is the only viable interpretation allowed. Such a position has neither a theological, historical, or scientific grounding.

While this blog post is, by no means, an attempt to exhaustively answer the Young Earth / Old Earth debate, I do want to make a few concise points.

In discussing this subject, with Young Earth proponents, I've sometimes been told that the Young Earth position is held because "it's what the Bible says". The obvious conclusion, from such a position, is that the Old Earth interpretation is NOT what the Bible says. I wonder if Young Earthers, who make such a statement, are really aware of implications of what they're proposing? Do they really think that some of their fellow Christians are not aware of what they happen to be reading in God's Word? I also wonder how consistent Young Earthers are with their "natural reading" of "what the Bible says" argument? If they wish to be consistent, then surely they must think that God has wings, that Jesus' had nails driven through his hands, that it's the Sun that revolves around the Earth*, that the mustard seed is the smallest plant seed on earth, and that the value of Pi is equal to the integer 3. But, of course, I would imagine that for those references they would argue that the meaning found in text involves intent and context - context which includes culture, language, genre, etc. Try as they might, they cannot get around the fact that the Genesis creation accounts have not been dogmatically held, through Christendom, to mean that God created the cosmos in 6 24 hour solar days, nor that one is mandated to translate the Hebrew text as such. It's my conclusion that they are incorrect in stating that their interpretation is the "natural reading" of "what the Bible says". 

Another point in which Ham slips up, in my opinion, is his accusation that the belief the universe is billions of years old correlates with a belief in natural process evolution. To his credit, he does not accuse Old Earthers of categorically believing in natural process evolution, but merely states that the Old Earth position "opens the door" to such belief. Still, I take issue with such a proposition, for it demonstrates a lack of understanding of both the Old Earth position as well as the natural process evolutionary position. The Old Earth interpretation attempts to harmonize not only the multiple creation accounts found in the Bible (including and beyond the two major ones found in Genesis), but our understanding of the physical realm as well. If the data points towards a universe billions of years old, and if we can harmonize the data with what we read in the Bible, then it is irrelevant whether or not the natural process evolutionary model also accepts a billions of years old universe. Also, as research continues, the complexity of our natural realm is becoming more evident: from the minute structure of DNA to the makeup of the universe itself. As we discover that advanced life requires this specified complexity, and as we understand that specified complexity is highly improbable, by chance, we begin to understand how improbable our existence is - from a purely natural point of view. Truth is, billions of years is appearing to be not enough time for advanced life to arise through natural means.

It seems to me that many in the Young Earth camp dismiss scientific research too easily. At best, they simply recognize man's fallibility and apply that fallibility to our interpretation of the natural realm; at worst, they assume some grand conspiracy, in the scientific community, dedicated to the undermining of all religious belief. I will spend zero time discussing the latter option, as I believe it to be nonsense and as I believe that Ham holds to the former option.

I wonder, at what point do I, as a fallible human, disregard the ideas of other fallible humans? Do I refuse to board an airliner simply because it was designed by fallible humans who, obviously, have fallible ideas about aeronautical engineering? Do I take the stairs, when visiting a high-rise building, because the elevator was designed by fallible humans with fallible ideas of structural engineering? How many Young Earthers have ever taken an over-the-counter medication? Since such medication was developed by fallible humans with fallible ideas regarding chemistry, I must conclude that Ken Ham does not take any over-the-counter medication. Speaking of fallible ideas - how about the idea of how we read, and understand, text? I think that we believe, however fallibly, that we are able to see, and then read text, due to the physical action of light photons bouncing off of a page of text, being received and processed by our eyes, through the lens, retina, and optic nerve, with the resulting electrical impulses then being interpreted by our brain. The whole notion of understanding God's written Word is dependent on a physical process.

You see, the problem with discounting scientific research is that one ends up having to pick and choose which scientific research they will believe in. While we don't have an exhaustive understanding of the physical realm, we do have some understanding of it and - this is important - our level of understanding grows as we continue to do more research. So, whereas the scientific community in the 1800s thought that the universe had always existed, Albert Einstein threw them on their heads by proposing (with scientific backup), in the early 1900s, that the universe was finite and actually began to exist. It is indeed very interesting that this notion of a beginning was already found in God's Word.

In the years since Einstein, the ideas of general and special relativity have been refined, through continued experimenting and testing, and as our understanding of cosmology grew. Likewise, in the years since the Wright brothers, we've moved from airplanes built out of wood and fabric, capable of carrying only one person, to jet powered airliners which transport hundreds of people thousands of miles at a time. Is there a chance that as we gain a better understanding of the physical realm the ideas of general and special relativity, as well as those of aeronautical engineering, will be overturned? Certainly. As stated earlier, we don't have a complete understanding of the entire cosmos. However, and this is how the process of progressive understanding works, as continued research builds cumulative support for a particular theory, the more reliable such a theory becomes in explaining the natural realm.

Unfortunately, for the Young Earth camp, they have no credible scientific data which can support a universe of 6,000 - 10,000 years in age. And, to make matters worse, further research in multiple, unrelated disciplines, continues to support an old age for the universe. The Old Earth model is certainly not without paradoxes or weak points, yet one should consider its many strengths before dismissing it out of hand.

Kudos to the Assemblies of God for revising their position on the creation accounts found in Genesis 1 and 2.

* a natural reading obvious conclusion, if the Earth truly does not move (and a conclusion that the church had to revise due to an eventual better understanding of the physical realm).

Comments

[John Weber]

outstanding analysis...thanks. The best OT Scholars (Kasier, Archer, et al), point out 4 possible interpretations of "yom" for day in Genesis. The Old Earth view is the best integration of all 27 major creation passages in scripture. What's more, if you visit Ken Ham's Creation Museum in N. Kentucky, you will see plagues describing how God intervened with rapid hyper-efficient evolution to account for the vast variation in species after animals disembarked from Noah's ark. You will also see how he explains carnivores. Since he says there was no animal death before Adam's fall, he believes every creature was created as a herbivore then some quickly became carnivores when they got off Noah's ark since there was no (or not enough) vegetation for food so they began eating carcasses. He makes it up science to support his theory. John

[Salvatore Tropea]

Amen and Excellent commentary! I have been a Pentecostal all my life and grew up with believing the Young Earth explanation of Creation. ICR under Morris and Gish provided the useful literature in defense of the Scripture and for that I am appreciative. Now as a retired EE I am fascinated by the older earth explanation as well and appreciate the brilliance of people like Hugh Ross and Ken Samples who articulate their beliefs with conviction. I applaud the AG of which I am a member, for having the intellectual honesty to at least state that there are different interpretations of the record among believers and that we can recognize that and still emulate Christ's love for each other which is the mark of a true Christian.
Did Christ restore Lazarus to perfect health after being dead three days by just saying "Lazarus Come Forth?" Yes. God's is omniscient and can work instantly or seemingly very slowly whatever he chooses. Since there were no observers to Genesis 1 and 2, it is not the churches responsibility to determine how long it took! It is our command to believe that God did it because His Word tells us He did it and Faith believes that the things seen can occurs from the unseen and that is the power of the Gospel still working in 2010 to save to heal and to meet our needs through Christ our Lord! -- Sam

[zuma]

Evolutionary theory is in question if we would compare the orderliness of animals and plants. You would discover that all animals would have their heads on top and follow by their chest and abdomen and even legs. For instance, if all the animals have their derivation from evolution, there would be a possibility of the disorderliness that would occur that some animals would have their heads to be formed at their abdomens or their chests to be formed above their heads or some might have one eye or more than two eyes. It seems to be that all animals are in orderly manner that all have two pairs of eyes and the eyes are always located at the heads instead of in the bodies. Besides, all have even number of legs or hands instead of some have odd number of hands. Small creatures, such as insects, would have all their heads to be in front and their tails or bodies to be behind. There is indeed orderliness among living creatures.
For instance, if all living things have been come about through evolution, there would be disorderliness since it would not give warranty an initial single lively molecule would develop into creatures with orderliness. There would be a possibility that an insect would be formed with the head at their body or only an eye or more than two pairs of eyes to be formed.
Consideration has also need to taken into the accounts that there would be more than a lively molecule to be formed in the beginning due to the environmental factors and condition that would deem best for the formation of living thing. As that would be so, there would be the liveliness that animals would be created in disorderliness in which some animals would have their heads be formed at the bodies and some even be formed.
As there is orderliness in the formation of living things, there seems to be something that controls it to cause it to be so. Religious people call it, God.

[zuma]

Stanley Miller and Harold Urey conducted an experiment for the discovery of the formation of lively molecule that would have the potentiality to be developed into future living creatures. Question has to be raised. It would not be possibility that only on that particular time in which it was so special that it would deem fit for the creation of new lively molecule as environmental factors and condition permit. If the creation of primitive living thing could occur in the beginning, there could be some new lively molecules to be developed nowadays if the environmental factors and condition would appear again. How could it be that the recent scientist has not discovered any lively molecules to be formed nowadays on earth that would have the potentiality to be developed into complex creatures? Does this mean that environmental factors and condition that deem fit for the creation of new lively molecule could only appear once and not more than that? If the environmental factors and condition that deem fit does appear in modern days or 1000 or even 10,000 years ago, there should be some primitive creatures to be found on this earth. Why is it that scientist could not find any primitive creatures on this earth nowadays? All these have put evolutionary theory to be in doubt too.

[zuma]

During Stanley Miller and Harold Urey ‘s experiment, many complex lively molecules were formed instead of one, how could evolutionists conclude that all living things would have a common ancestor? Unless his experiment has shown that only one lively molecule, it is then rational for evolutionists to conclude that all living things would have a common ancestor.
The formation of the lively molecule during his experiment did not live for numerous years. Unless the lively molecule that had been created had survived up to now, it is then rational for evolutionists to conclude that all living things might be formed through the process as suggested by him through experiment. How could evolutionists be certain that primitive creatures were formed through this process?
His experiment can only conclude that temporary living thing could only be formed through the process instead of one that was created could exist and be generated and be multiplied from years to years.

[zuma]

The following are the various methods that are adopted by scientists to assess the age of the earth:
a)Using sea composition to compute the age of the earth:
Scientists used sea composition to derive the age of the earth. This method has its derivation from Edmond Halley (1656-1742). In his opinion, the rain would have dissolved all salt from the ground and would bring down to the sea with the assumption that there would be no salt in the sea initially.
In 1910, George F. Becker found the age of the earth to be between 50 and 70 million years by means of salt clock method.
However, the measurement by means of seawater composition does not give an accurate age of the earth on the condition if the sea might have been formed initially with much salt in the beginning. If that would be so, it is irrational to measure sea composition to determine the age of earth since much salt would have been in the sea already during its creation.
b)Lord Kelvin in 1862 did compute the age of earth through the estimation of the coolness of the earth from its original molten state in which he concluded that the age of the earth was between 20 to 400 million years ago.
However, its assumption that the earth would be in the molten state might not be accurate on the condition if the earth would have been formed in solid state initially instead of in molten. If that would be so, the computation of the age of this earth that is by means of the computation of the time taken for earth to be cooled down would not be reliable.
c)Erosion method: The assessment of the age of the earth is by means of the observation with presumption that erosion would take place at about 1 ft every 5,000 years. With this method, they assess Canyon would start out flat and it would take 30,000,000 years for the Colorado river to erode 600 ft of the Grand Canyon.
The computation above suffers a shortfall with the assumption that it would start up flat. What if the place does not start up flat or it would be that the place has already been created nearer to current condition in the beginning of its creation, the computation would not give the accurate period of erosion.
Another query is why the erosion rate should be consistent at 1 ft every 5,000 years and not 1 ft every 4,000 years or otherwise.
Thus, the computation of the earth by means of erosion method would be subjective and not reliable.
d)Using radiometric dating methods to compute the age of the earth:
The derivation of radiometric dating methods or radioactive dating methods came in the late 1940s and 1950s. These methods focus on the decay of atoms of one chemical element into another. This technique is based on a comparison between the measured amount of a naturally occurring radioactive element and its decay product, assuming a constant rate of decay – known as half-life.
Using this technique, scientists could analyze the rock to assess the age of the earth through uranium and lead, plug those values along with the half-life into a logarithmic equation. They have arrived with the conclusion that the age of the earth should be 4.5 to 4.6 billion years.
However, what if both the parent isotopes, i.e. Samarium-147, Rubidium-87, Rhenium-187, Lutetium-176, Thorium-232,Uranium-238, Potassium-40, Uranium-235, Beryllium-10, Chlorine-36, Carbon-14, Uranium-234 and Thorium-230, that have been commented by Scientists to be the products (daughter) of Neodymium-143, Strontium-87, Osmium-187, Hafnium-176, Lead-208, Lead-206, Argon-40, Lead-207, Boron-10, Argon-36, Nitrogen-14, Thorium-230, and Radium-226 respectively, might have co-existed in the beginning of the world during its formation, it is erroneous to comment that there would be relationship among them and to use them to assess the decay rate of half life in order to use it to compute the age of the earth or fossils since all these materials might have been created ever since the beginning of the earth. As that could be so, it is erroneous to use it to compute the age of the earth to be billion years.

[Rusty]

Thanks for your comments, Zuma. I'm aware of most of the young earth arguments against dating methods which give us an earth and/or universe older than 6,000 - 10,000 years. I'm also unconvinced by them. Many times they rely on faulty science or faulty assumptions, or they fail to take into account cross-checking features from unrelated sources, or they don't account for values their own calculations offer which are greater than 10,000 years.

[zuma]

Scientists have accepted the use of half-life decay rates to be in millions or billions years for radiometric dating method or radioactive dating method. Some would suggest that Noah’s ark should have caused the rocks to have accelerate decay and that would have caused the age of the earth to be misled in millions or billions years. Discuss.
Noah’s ark that had appeared in the past might not cause the rocks to decay accelerate for the following reasons:
a)Some rocks that have been created in the very beginning would be as hard as diamond so much so that it is impossible for these rocks to decay. As these rocks would be impossible to decay, the appearance of Noah’s ark would not cause any damage of these rocks. As these rocks could be as hard as diamond, it is irrational to suggest their decay rates to be in millions or billions of years since it would be impossible for them to decay in the first place and that the decay rate for them should be set at 0. To give the high value of decay rates, such as, billion years, for hard rocks in which they are impossible to decay, Scientists have indirectly pushed the age of fossils and the earth to billions years unrealistically.
b)Only the soft rocks that would have created in the very beginning would decay rapidly instead of the hard one. Scientists might have observed the change of shape of the rocks and comment that they should be the cause of decaying rocks. However, they should consider also the change of shape of rocks could be the result of soft rocks instead of hard since the hard would be impossible for them to decay. Besides, the hard rocks that could have been created initially would look like the current shape. As these hard rocks could never decay since they are as solid as diamond, there is no way for Noah’s ark or wind or whatever to cause them to decay. As these hard rocks could not decay, it is irrational to suggest that the incidence of Noah’s ark would have any influence upon the shape of hard rocks.
The reliability of radiometric dating method that has been adopted by scientists to determine the age of fossils as well as the earth would be in question on the condition of the possible existence of rocks that would be as hard as diamond so much so that there is no way for them to decay. If that would be so, there should be no reason for scientists to suggest that the decay rates of the rocks should be million or billion years since they would have been created in the beginning in such a way that there is no way for them to decay. If that could be so, to insist the value of decaying rates for hard rocks with millions or billions of years would simply be unrealistic and unreliable.
The following is the list of isotopes that have been used by scientists to estimate the age of the earth as well as fossils:
Samarium-147 (parent); Neodymium-143 (daughter); decaying rate: 106 billion years
Rubidium-87 (parent); Strontium-87 (daughter); decaying rate: 50 billion years
Uranium-238 (parent); Lead-206 (daughter); decaying rate: 4.47 billion years
Potassium-40 (parent); Argon-40 (daughter); decaying rate: 1.3 billion years
Uranium-235 (parent); Lead-207 (daughter); decaying rate: 704 million years
Uranium-234 (parent); Thorium-230 (daughter); decaying rate: 80,000 years
Carbon-14 (parent); Nitrogen-14 (daughter); decaying rate: 5,730 years
Using radioactive dating method to date the age of fossils and the earth would be unreliable. Let’s take Samarium-147 (parent) and Neodymium-143 (daughter) to be one of the examples from above for illustration.
a)What if Neodymium-143 would have been created in the very beginning instead of it would be the result of decaying from Samarium-147, it is irrational to link up the relationship between them and to comment that Neodymium-143 was the transformation of Samarium-147 and to establish its half-life decaying rate to be 106 billion years.
b)What if both Samarium-147 and Neodymium-143 would have been created as hard as diamond that it would be impossible for them to decay, it is irrational to conclude that Neodymium-143 should be the daughter of Samarium-147 and to suggest that the decaying rate for Neodymium-143 from Samarium-147 to be 106 billion years. This is by virtue of the half life decay rate for Neodymium-143 from Samarium-147 should be set at 0 at the absence of the possibility of decaying.
c)How could scientists have established the relationship between these items and comment that Neodymium-143 should have decayed from Samarium-147 instead of other source or material or substance? There would be a possibility that Neodymium-143 might decay and turn into another form of material instead of Samarium-147.
d)How do the scientists derive the decay rate for each material and to ensure its accuracy of decay rate? For instance, the Scientists have suggested the half-life decay rate for Neodymium-143 from Samarium-147 to be 106 billion years. Why should the decay rate be 106 billion years instead of a few thousand years? How do they get this figure or whether they would have plucked from sky since nobody could live so long so as to witness this would come true for the transformation?
e) When the scientists suggested the decay rates for various materials, such as, from Argon-40 to Potassium-40 or from Samarium-147 to Neodymium-143, how do they arrange in such a way that the decay rate for Argon-40 to Potassium-40 would be lower than Samarium-147 to Neodymium-143 and not the other way round?
d)As nobody could live millions or billions of years to witness whether Samarium-147 would turn up to be Neodymium-143, the reliability of radioactive dating method by means of the use of isotopes is questionable.
All the above have placed the reliability of radioactive dating method into question especially the setting of decay rate in million or billions years have indirectly pushed the age of fossils and the earth unreasonably to billion years.
Refer to the website site address http://asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html pertaining to the mathematical formula in which it indicates how the age of fossils and the earth to be computed:
t = h x ln[1+(argon-40)/(0.112 x (potassium-40))]/ln(2)
where t is the time in years, h is the half-year, also in years, and ln is the natural logarithm.
Examine the formula carefully. t, the age of the fossils or the rock or the earth, corresponds with h, that is the half-year decay rate. If the scientists intentionally push the half-year decay rate to millions of years, t, that is the age of the fossils or the rock or the earth, would be pushed up by them to millions or even billions of years.

[zuma]

What is radiometric decay or radioactive decay? Radioactive decay is a spontaneous disintegration of a radionuclide accompanied by the emission of ionizing radiation in the form of alpha or beta particles or gamma rays.
Some might argue that radiometric decay could not cause any decay in the rocks or substance or etc.. If radiometric decay could not cause any influence upon the rock or substance. The parent isotope, such as, Rubidium-87, could still remain to be Rubidium-87 after 50 billion years, instead of turning up to be Strontium-87 (daughter). As the parent isotope, such as Rubidium-87, would turn up to be Strontium-87, in 50 billion years later, it implies that there would be a change of quality as a result of the influence of radioactive decay.
Do environmental factors have any influence upon radiometric decay? Yes, there is. If environmental factors could not have any influence upon radiometric decay, there should not be any reason for scientists to assume that the half year decay rate from Parent isotopes to Daughter to be constant in the first place.
The following are the number of websites that have indicated that environmental factors could alter radioactive decay rate despite the assumption that has been established through radiometric dating method to be constant and unchanged:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5076971/description.html; http://creation.com/radioactive-decay-rate-depends-on-chemical-environment; http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j14_1/j14_1_04-05.pdf; http://wavewatching.net/2012/09/01/from-the-annals-of-the-impossible-experimental-physics-edition/; http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/decay.htm
As the decay rate that has been assumed by scientists in the computation of the age of fossils or rocks or whatever to be in constant rate and yet the actual decay rate might not be constant as a result of the influence of environment, the ages of fossils or rocks or the earth that have been computed by scientists to be in billion years would not be reliable. This is by virtue of radiometric dating method has presumed a perfection for decay rate and yet it could be accelerated in reality. As the decay rate could be accelerated, the age of the fossils or rocks or the earth could never be accurate.
What if the parent isotopes, such as, Samarium-147, so hard that it could resist radiometric decay that it would not cause any change of quality to turn up to be the daughter isotopes, such as, Neodymium-143, the mathematic formula that has been used to compute the age of the fossils or rocks or the earth could not be applicable. This is by virtue of the objects that have been used to measure the ages of the fossils or rocks or the earth have to be established to have parent-daughter relationship. Or else, insisting the use of radioactive dating method would simply give false information about the ages of fossils or rocks or the earth.
What if the parent isotopes, such as, Uranium-235, or whatever, could be so weak that any environmental factors, such as, sun, wind, Noah’s ark and whatever, could accelerate radioactive decay rate and yet it could restore to its original rate at the absence of the influence, the ages of the fossils or rocks or the earth would be falsified as a result of great influence from environment.
What if the objects that have been presumed by Scientists would not have parent-daughter relationship in reality, the ages of fossils or rocks or the earth would be falsified through computation.
Let’s give you an illustration. The parent isotope, Samarium-147, has found to be the daughter of Neodymium-143 just because they both emit alpha particles instead of physical witness of the transformation of Neodymium-143 from Samarium-147. What if Samarium-147 could be so hard to resist radioactive decay so much so that it could not be transformed into Neodymium-143, the insisting to place these two items together and to establish them to be parent-daughter relationship and to compute the decay rate to be 106 billion years would certainly turn up to be unreliable. What if the parent isotope, let’s say, Samarium-147, would change in quality as a result of radioactive decay, yet it would not turn up to be Neodymium-143 but other source. The insisting to establish these two isotopes to have parent-daughter relationship would falsify the computation of the ages of fossils or rocks or the earth. Anyway, nobody could live in billion of years to witness whether the isotopes, let’s say, Samarium-147, could transform into Neodymium-143. Scientists simply establish their relationship through observing the similarity of emission instead of seeing physical transformation. Thus, the ages of fossils or rocks or the earth that have been computed by scientists to be in million or billion years through radiometric dating method would not be reliable.
From the above analysis, it is irrational to conclude the earth or fossils or rocks to be in million years or billions years as a result of the uncertainty of radiometric decay rate and the questionability whether one substance could be the daughter isotope of another.