Another Way Young-Earth Creationism is Unbiblical

Another Way Young-Earth Creationism is Unbiblical November 10, 2013

Young-earth creationism takes it upon itself to do something that none of the Biblical authors does.

Even though there were lots of different views in Mesopotamia and Egypt, and later in Greece and Rome, about the processes involved in nature, we never see a Biblical author challenge any of those views. Not one.

Sometimes, however, they do simply accept those views – such as when Paul treats the heart as the location of human thought rather than the brain, following Aristotle; or when Genesis 1 sees creation as splitting water and putting a dome or arch in place to hold up the waters above. But even then, there is no attempt to combat other viewpoints, or to call anyone to accept this depiction of how the natural order works rather than another.

You can fact-check this claim. Read the entire Bible carefully, cover to cover. You won’t find anyone anywhere doing what young-earth creationism does.

And so when young-earth creationism challenges what scientists say about the natural world, it is not only not Biblical, it is departing dramatically from the example of the Biblical authors.

For them to claim their stance as “Biblical” is the exact opposite of the truth.

(Click here to see the discussion in comments on another post which inspired this one).

"Refer your colleague to an English translation of Dictionaire Infernal (1863). The original is in ..."

Wrestling with a Demon
"Bob is used to me. He banned me off his blog several years ago but ..."

153 Fish – The Definitive Explanation
"Ok. I tried to make available to you some key info but you have your ..."

153 Fish – The Definitive Explanation
"Touché! Let me rephrase what I wrote. “Dead people were not generally thought to become ..."

Response to Raphael Lataster

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • dangjin

    an argument from silence and a failure to understand what the Bible actually says.

    • This is a very odd comment to leave on a post highlighting precisely what the Bible is silent about, and what it does not say.

  • Peter Kirk

    While I am far from wanting to defend young earth creationism: Can’t Job chapters 38-41 be read as an extended challenge to the claims of contemporary wisdom to understand the universe and the natural world? It is not specific about what views of this are rejected (perhaps, in the context, Elihu’s views in chapters 36-37), nor about what views to accept. But there is a clear implication that these can be understood not by reason or human observation, what we would now call science, but only by what God chooses to reveal about them. We can of course reject that teaching, but we can’t deny that it is at least one strand that we can find in the Bible.

    • I actually think that the theophany in Job puts all human claims to understanding in their place, while Ken Ham, when he sarcastically asks “Were you there?” to scientists who seek to investigate the world, is actually putting himself in the place of God in that book, rather than in the role of either Job, who learns to accept his limited perspective, or in the role of those who dig into the Earth and discover things even though they still don’t grasp it all. I wrote about this here:

      • Peter Kirk

        Thanks for the reminder of your previous post. Indeed, the words of God in Job are presented as combating all human viewpoints on these matters, rather than promoting any one specific view over any other. So, if you take them as genuine words of God as no doubt Ham would claim to do, they undermine Ham’s position. But if you take them as simply the viewpoint of the author of Job, put into God’s mouth, then they are a human viewpoint which is being promoted over others – even if that human viewpoint is simply that God did it all and humans cannot understand it. This seems somewhat ironic to me: liberal presuppositions leaving room for the fundamentalist conclusion, while fundamentalist presuppositions rule out that conclusion.

  • Greg Robertson

    This is but one of many ways the young earther cult is NOT based on the Bible. No where in the Bible is the age of the Earth given. No where.

    • The young-earthers would say you’re wrong, citing the OT genealogies. But I think the point James McGrath is making is even more important: Nowhere in the Bible does it say the age of the earth is important.

      • TomS

        Don’t underestimate the resourcefulness of someone wanting to find something in the Bible. The commandment to keep the Sabbath refers to the six days of creation. On the other hand, one can find conflicts between different genealogies which are duly explained away by ad hoc interpretations.

  • Here in TN, they have taken steps though new legislation to allow creationism back into the classroom. This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist’s blog at with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.

  • Leo O’Bannon

    Had a “lecturer” from AiG come into our church to shill for YEC and it was appalling on two counts. 1. Not only was he bashing evolution and “millions of years” but misrepresenting evolution. 2. Everyone (except me) was applauding! What? Out of 300 people I was the only one cringing at what this gentleman was saying. It was disgusting. I don’t give to that church anymore, unless I know the money doesn’t go toward buying more AiG literature and speaker fees.

  • TheGreatIncognito

    I’ve read the Bible cover to cover, and I must say I disagree. Vast portions of the Bible are spent with God telling His people to follow His teachings and not those of the world, including instructions regarding almost all branches of knowledge: a few examples include medicine (Exodus 15:26, which leads to the OT law teachings, many of which have documented health benefits), finance (Proverbs 8:18 among many in that book), and origins (Jeremiah 10:11). These topics (along with a myriad of others) covered in the Bible are written with noted contrast to the teachings of the world. While there may be excellent points regarding the fallacy of creationism from a biblical perspective, I fear in this case your claims far exceed your evidence.

    • So are you suggesting that covering our mouths when we cough and other very basic recommendations of modern health and hygiene are unimportant?

      If you set the Bible’s laws within their ancient historical contexts, they show no sign of offering more advanced medical or even anatomical information – even in the NT, Paul sided with Aristotle on whether the heart or the brain was the locus of human thought, and literally speaking he was wrong. Trying to suggest otherwise involves an attempt to crowbar modern knowledge into the Bible, which distorts and twists and shows the utmost disrespect for the Bible in the process.

  • Roger Foster

    The Bible does not get into the debate about age of the earth other than letting us know that the earth was created in 6 literal, 24 hour days.
    There is plenty of evidence to support this view:
    – Polonium halos embedded in granite worldwide prove that earth’s bedrock was formed in under 3 minutes, not millions of years.
    – Polystrate fossils prove that there was massive layers of sediment deposited during a worldwide flood (these are trees that are petrified upright and are going right through different “eons” of sediment deposit without rotting in the meantime)
    – lots more, but these two make the case all on their own…


    • These are common assertions, but they are in fact false. If you fact check them, looking for peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that support them, you will find that there aren’t any (you may find YEC sites that claim certain articles support their claims, but you will need to read the scientific articles themselves, at which point you will discover just how dishonest YEC sources are).

      May God bless you and help you to examine the claims of deceitful false teachers in a careful and honest way!