Changes

[[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|right|alt=Young earth creationism|thumb|310px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the creation of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]] by [[God]].]]

[[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|right|alt=Young earth creationism|thumb|310px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the creation of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]] by [[God]].]]

'''Young Earth Creationism''', or "YEC", <ref>"YEC", can refer to Young Earth Creationist or Young Earth Creationism.  "YECs" refers to Young Earth Creationists.</ref> accepts [[creationism]] whereby the [[earth]] and the [[universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3837 Chapter 8, How old is the earth?].</ref><ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7, Astronomy] of Refuting Evolution.</ref>

'''Young Earth Creationism''', or "YEC",<ref>"YEC", can refer to Young Earth Creationist or Young Earth Creationism.  "YECs" refers to Young Earth Creationists.</ref> accepts [[creationism]] whereby the [[earth]] and the [[universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3837 Chapter 8, How old is the earth?].</ref><ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7, Astronomy] of Refuting Evolution.</ref>

Young earth creationists hold that both [[creation]] and the [[Evolution|evolutionary position]] are based on [[worldview]]s; because they are both claims about historical (or prehistorical) events, they depend on untestable assumptions.  At the same time, Young Earth [[Creation Science|creation scientists]] see the Young Universe as the explanation that best fits the evidence.<ref>''See also'' [[Young Earth|Young earth]].</ref>

Young earth creationists hold that both [[creation]] and the [[Evolution|evolutionary position]] are based on [[worldview]]s; because they are both claims about historical (or prehistorical) events, they depend on untestable assumptions.  At the same time, Young Earth [[Creation Science|creation scientists]] see the Young Universe as the explanation that best fits the evidence.<ref>''See also'' [[Young Earth|Young earth]].</ref>

{{QuoteBox|Historical-grammatical exegesis involves a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships of the words which comprise the text.<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4880/ The Bible and hermeneutics] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(3):14–20, December 2005, p.14-20.</ref>}}

{{QuoteBox|Historical-grammatical exegesis involves a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships of the words which comprise the text.<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4880/ The Bible and hermeneutics] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(3):14–20, December 2005, p.14-20.</ref>}}

For more than a century, the majority of conservative Old Testament scholars no longer accepted the chronological implications of the Genesis "chrono-genealogies" following the accommodation of the old Princeton Theology (“Primeval Chronology,” ''Bibliotheca Sacra'' 47 (1890): 285-303).  However, Jeremy Sexton reexamined this hypothesis in 2015 <ref>: "Who Was Born When Enosh Was 90?: A Semantic Reevaluation of William Henry Green's Chronological Gaps." The Westminster Theological Journal 77, no. 2 (September 2015): 193-218.[http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2016/04/06/Who-Was-Born-When-Enosh-Was-90-A-Semantic-Reevaluation-of-William-Henry-Greene28099s-Chronological-Gaps.aspx]</ref> starting the process of returning Old Testament Scholarship to the consensus that held sway since before the coming of Christ ([[Earth age opinions of prominent Christians - pre-1800‎]]).

For more than a century, the majority of conservative Old Testament scholars no longer accepted the chronological implications of the Genesis "chrono-genealogies" following the accommodation of the old Princeton Theology (“Primeval Chronology,” ''Bibliotheca Sacra'' 47 (1890): 285-303).  However, Jeremy Sexton reexamined this hypothesis in 2015<ref>: "Who Was Born When Enosh Was 90?: A Semantic Reevaluation of William Henry Green's Chronological Gaps." The Westminster Theological Journal 77, no. 2 (September 2015): 193-218.[http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2016/04/06/Who-Was-Born-When-Enosh-Was-90-A-Semantic-Reevaluation-of-William-Henry-Greene28099s-Chronological-Gaps.aspx]</ref> starting the process of returning Old Testament Scholarship to the consensus that held sway since before the coming of Christ ([[Earth age opinions of prominent Christians - pre-1800‎]]).

== Age of the Universe and Earth - General Overview ==

== Age of the Universe and Earth - General Overview ==

Young Earth [[creation]] scientists advance a number of reasons for the Earth and [[universe]] being approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA" /><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> They argue that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error, <ref>Woodmorappe, John, [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2):77–82, 1999</ref><ref>Morris, Henry, [https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] ''Impact'' 6, August 1973</ref><ref>[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm Geologic Time Scale  - The Misconceptions] (All About Creation)</ref> and that [[geology]] further provides multiple lines of evidence that the Earth is young.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp Geology Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>[http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm Geology] (Creation.org)</ref><ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html Geology Links] (Northwest Creation Network)</ref><ref>Baumgardner, John, [http://globalflood.org/ Genesis Flood] 28 July 2003.</ref> Rejecting the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] assumptions of secular geologists, they use a [[geologic system|geological system]] that depends more on [[catastrophism]] <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record</ref> and point out that catastrophism is being increasingly accepted in the field of geology.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref><ref>https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref>

Young Earth [[creation]] scientists advance a number of reasons for the Earth and [[universe]] being approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA" /><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> They argue that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error,<ref>Woodmorappe, John, [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2):77–82, 1999</ref><ref>Morris, Henry, [https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] ''Impact'' 6, August 1973</ref><ref>[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm Geologic Time Scale  - The Misconceptions] (All About Creation)</ref> and that [[geology]] further provides multiple lines of evidence that the Earth is young.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp Geology Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>[http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm Geology] (Creation.org)</ref><ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html Geology Links] (Northwest Creation Network)</ref><ref>Baumgardner, John, [http://globalflood.org/ Genesis Flood] 28 July 2003.</ref> Rejecting the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] assumptions of secular geologists, they use a [[geologic system|geological system]] that depends more on [[catastrophism]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record</ref> and point out that catastrophism is being increasingly accepted in the field of geology.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref><ref>https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref>

== Astronomy ==

== Astronomy ==

== Criticism ==

== Criticism ==

===Creationist methodology===

===Creationist methodology===

Against the Young Earth Creationist attacks on "evolutionism" and "Darwinism", critics argue that every challenge to evolution by YECs is either made in an unscientific fashion, or is readily explainable by science, and that while a gap in scientific knowledge may exist now it is likely to be closed through further research. While scientists acknowledge that there are indeed a number of gaps in the scientific theory, they generally reject the creationist viewpoint that these gaps represent fatal, insurmountable flaws with evolution. Those working in the field who pointed out the gaps in the first place have often explicitly rejected the creationist interpretation. The "God of the gaps" viewpoint has also been criticized by [[theology|theologians]] and [[philosophy|philosophers]], <ref>[http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm Is there anything wrong with “God of the gaps” reasoning?], by Robert Larmer</ref> although creationists claim that their models are based on what is known, not on gaps in knowledge.{{Citation needed|date=October 2009}}

Against the Young Earth Creationist attacks on "evolutionism" and "Darwinism", critics argue that every challenge to evolution by YECs is either made in an unscientific fashion, or is readily explainable by science, and that while a gap in scientific knowledge may exist now it is likely to be closed through further research. While scientists acknowledge that there are indeed a number of gaps in the scientific theory, they generally reject the creationist viewpoint that these gaps represent fatal, insurmountable flaws with evolution. Those working in the field who pointed out the gaps in the first place have often explicitly rejected the creationist interpretation. The "God of the gaps" viewpoint has also been criticized by [[theology|theologians]] and [[philosophy|philosophers]],<ref>[http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm Is there anything wrong with “God of the gaps” reasoning?], by Robert Larmer</ref> although creationists claim that their models are based on what is known, not on gaps in knowledge.{{Citation needed|date=October 2009}}

Christian YECs adhere strongly to the concept of [[biblical inerrancy]], which declares the Bible to be divinely inspired and therefore scientifically infallible and non-correctable. This position is considered by devotees and critics alike to be incompatible with the principles of scientific objectivity. The Young Earth creationist organizations [[Answers in Genesis]] (AiG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) require all members to pledge support for biblical inerrancy.

Christian YECs adhere strongly to the concept of [[biblical inerrancy]], which declares the Bible to be divinely inspired and therefore scientifically infallible and non-correctable. This position is considered by devotees and critics alike to be incompatible with the principles of scientific objectivity. The Young Earth creationist organizations [[Answers in Genesis]] (AiG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) require all members to pledge support for biblical inerrancy.

Many critics claim that Genesis itself is internally inconsistent on the question of whether man was created before the animals or after the animals as stated in Genesis. Proponents of the Documentary hypothesis suggest that Genesis 1 was a litany from the ''Priestly'' source (possibly from an early Jewish [[liturgy]]) while Genesis 2 was assembled from older ''Jahwist'' material, holding that for both stories to be a single account, Adam would have named all the animals, and God would have created Eve from his rib as a suitable mate, all within a single 24-hour period. Many creationists attribute this view to misunderstanding having arisen from poor translation of the tenses in Genesis 2 in contemporary translations of the Bible (e.g. compare "planted" and "had planted" in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%202:8;&version=9 KJV] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%202:8;&version=31 NIV]).<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp Biblical Exegesis</ref>

Many critics claim that Genesis itself is internally inconsistent on the question of whether man was created before the animals or after the animals as stated in Genesis. Proponents of the Documentary hypothesis suggest that Genesis 1 was a litany from the ''Priestly'' source (possibly from an early Jewish [[liturgy]]) while Genesis 2 was assembled from older ''Jahwist'' material, holding that for both stories to be a single account, Adam would have named all the animals, and God would have created Eve from his rib as a suitable mate, all within a single 24-hour period. Many creationists attribute this view to misunderstanding having arisen from poor translation of the tenses in Genesis 2 in contemporary translations of the Bible (e.g. compare "planted" and "had planted" in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%202:8;&version=9 KJV] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%202:8;&version=31 NIV]).<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp Biblical Exegesis</ref>

Some Christians assert that the Bible is free from error only in religious and moral matters, and that where scientific questions are concerned, the Bible should not be read literally. This position is held by a number of major denominations. For instance, in a publication entitled ''The Gift of Scripture'', <ref>http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Resources/Scripture/ (October 2005)</ref> the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales comments that "We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision". The Bible is held to be true in passages relating to human salvation, but "We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters."<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html | work=The Times | location=London | title=Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible | first=Ruth | last=Gledhill | date=2005-10-05}}</ref> By contrast, YECs contend that moral and spiritual matters in the Bible are intimately connected with its historical accuracy; in their view, the Bible stands or falls as a single indivisible block of knowledge.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/editorial.asp ‘But Genesis is not a science textbook’<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>

Some Christians assert that the Bible is free from error only in religious and moral matters, and that where scientific questions are concerned, the Bible should not be read literally. This position is held by a number of major denominations. For instance, in a publication entitled ''The Gift of Scripture'',<ref>http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Resources/Scripture/ (October 2005)</ref> the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales comments that "We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision". The Bible is held to be true in passages relating to human salvation, but "We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters."<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html | work=The Times | location=London | title=Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible | first=Ruth | last=Gledhill | date=2005-10-05}}</ref> By contrast, YECs contend that moral and spiritual matters in the Bible are intimately connected with its historical accuracy; in their view, the Bible stands or falls as a single indivisible block of knowledge.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/editorial.asp ‘But Genesis is not a science textbook’<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>

Aside from the theological doubts voiced by other Christians, YEC also stands in opposition to the creation mythologies of other religions (both [[wikt:extant|extant]] and [[extinct]]). Many of these make claims regarding the origin of the universe and humanity that are completely incompatible with those of Christian creationists (and with one another).<ref>{{cite book|title=A Dictionary of Creation Myths|last=Leeming|first=D.A.|coauthors=Leeming, M.A.|year=1996|publisher=Oxford Paperbacks|isbn=0195102754}}</ref>

Aside from the theological doubts voiced by other Christians, YEC also stands in opposition to the creation mythologies of other religions (both [[wikt:extant|extant]] and [[extinct]]). Many of these make claims regarding the origin of the universe and humanity that are completely incompatible with those of Christian creationists (and with one another).<ref>{{cite book|title=A Dictionary of Creation Myths|last=Leeming|first=D.A.|coauthors=Leeming, M.A.|year=1996|publisher=Oxford Paperbacks|isbn=0195102754}}</ref>

=== Peer-reviewed journals ===

=== Peer-reviewed journals ===

The [[Creation Research Society Quarterly]] is published quarterly by the Creation Research Society, <ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref> and the [[Journal of Creation]] is published three times a year by Creation Ministries International.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/98</ref>

The [[Creation Research Society Quarterly]] is published quarterly by the Creation Research Society,<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref> and the [[Journal of Creation]] is published three times a year by Creation Ministries International.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/98</ref>

==Further reading==

==Further reading==

* J.D. Mitchell, ''The Creation Dialogues - A Response to the Position of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Evolution, Christianity and the Bible'', Pleasant Word (Winepress Pub), 2010 ISBN 1414118007 <ref>http://www.creationengineeringconcepts.org/index.php?p=1_35_THE-CREATION-DIALOGUES</ref><ref>http://www.christianbook.com/dialogues-american-association-advancement-evolution-christianity/j-d-mitchell/9781414118000/pd/118002</ref>

* J.D. Mitchell, ''The Creation Dialogues - A Response to the Position of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Evolution, Christianity and the Bible'', Pleasant Word (Winepress Pub), 2010 ISBN 1414118007<ref>http://www.creationengineeringconcepts.org/index.php?p=1_35_THE-CREATION-DIALOGUES</ref><ref>http://www.christianbook.com/dialogues-american-association-advancement-evolution-christianity/j-d-mitchell/9781414118000/pd/118002</ref>

* Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]], ''Creation: Our Worldview'', TEC Publications, Columbus, GA 2010 ISBN 0-9674006-1-9

* Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]], ''Creation: Our Worldview'', TEC Publications, Columbus, GA 2010 ISBN 0-9674006-1-9

* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)]

* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)]

* Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002, ISBN 0890513872 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)]

* Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002, ISBN 0890513872 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)]

* [[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996 <ref>https://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref>

* [[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996<ref>https://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref>

* [[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy''.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wysong.net/page/WOTTPWS/PROD/EDUAIDS/ED022-S</ref>

* [[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy''.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wysong.net/page/WOTTPWS/PROD/EDUAIDS/ED022-S</ref>

* [[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991 <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref>

* [[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref>

* [[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994 <ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref><ref>http://store.apologeticsgroup.com/product_info.php?products_id=191</ref>

* [[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994<ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref><ref>http://store.apologeticsgroup.com/product_info.php?products_id=191</ref>

* [[Walt Brown]], ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', 7th Edition, 2001 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html (free online version)]

* [[Walt Brown]], ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', 7th Edition, 2001 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html (free online version)]

* Jeanson, Nathaniel T. (2017). ''[https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/replacing-darwin/ Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species]''. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. ISBN: 9781683440758.

* Jeanson, Nathaniel T. (2017). ''[https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/replacing-darwin/ Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species]''. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. ISBN: 9781683440758.