300
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + + − Many Young Earth creationists are active in the development of creation science, a creationist endeavor that holds that the events associated with supernatural creation can be evidenced and modelled through an interpretation of the scientific method. This has led to the establishment of a number of young Earth Creation Science organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society.+ − Young Earth creationists (YECs) claim that the lack of support for a Young Earth theory in professional science journals or among professional science organizations is due to discrimination and censorship.[4][5][6][7] The lack of support given by these professional journals and organizations reflect the overwhelming scientific consensus that Young Earth creationist claims have no scientific validity. For example, a statement by 68 national and international science academies lists as evidence-based facts that have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines, without any contradiction from scientific evidence, that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and has shown continuing change, that life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago, and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin.[8]+ − Contents [hide]+ − 1 History − 1.1 Origins − 1.2 Decline − 1.3 Revival − 1.4 Oriental Orthodox Church − 2 Characteristics and beliefs − 2.1 Age of the Earth − 2.2 Attitude towards science − 2.3 View of the Bible − 2.4 Interpretation of Genesis − 2.5 Human history − 2.6 Animal behavior − 2.7 Diversification of life − 2.8 Palaeontology and dinosaurs − 3 Comparison with other forms of creationism − 3.1 Old Earth creationism − 3.2 Gap creationism − 3.3 The Omphalos hypothesis − 4 Criticism − 4.1 Scientific − 4.2 Theological − 5 References − 6 See also − 6.1 Church bodies whose official position is YEC − 7 External links − 7.1 Websites supportive of YEC − 7.2 Young Earth videos − 7.3 Websites critical of YEC − 7.4 Articles − + + + + + + + + − [edit] History+ + − [edit] Origins+ − Some Young Earth creationists have claimed that this view has its earliest roots in Judaism, citing, for example, the commentary on Genesis by Ibn Ezra (c. 1089–1164).[1] However, Shai Cherry of Vanderbilt University notes that Jewish theologians have generally rejected such literalist interpretations of the written text, and that even Jewish commentators who oppose some aspects of Darwinian thought generally accept scientific evidence that the Earth is much older.[9] Similar claims are made of Christian commentators, but a number of prominent early Christian Church Fathers including Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine, did not believe the Genesis account depicted ordinary solar days and read creation history as an allegory as well as being theologically true (however this being said, all of these men certainly did believe in a young earth[10]). The Protestant reformation hermeneutic inclined some of the Reformers and later Protestants toward a literal reading of the Bible as translated, believing in an ordinary day, and maintaining this younger-Earth view. − The belief that the universe was made by a rational Creator was held by many of the founders of modern science, such as Copernicus, Kepler, Faraday, Galileo, Maxwell, Newton, Boyle, Pascal and Nicolas Steno, all of whom followed the empirical Baconian method described by Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626), who emphasised that the works of God in nature teach us how to interpret the word of God in the Bible.[11]+ − In 1650, Archbishop Ussher published the Ussher chronology, a chronology dating the Creation to the night preceding October 23, 4004 BC. Ussher's proposed date of 4004 BC differed little from other Biblically-based estimates, such as those of Bede (3952 BC), Ussher's near-contemporary, Scaliger (3949 BC), Johannes Kepler (3992 BC), Sir Isaac Newton (c. 4000 BC), or John Lightfoot (3929 BC).+ + + + − [edit] Decline+ − Support for Young Earth creationism declined from the 18th century onwards with the development of the scientific revolution, and scientific paradigm shifts. James Hutton, now regarded as the father of modern geology, opened up the concept of deep time for scientific inquiry. Rather than accepting that the Earth was no more than a few thousand years old, he maintained that the Earth must be much older (indeed, he asserted that the Earth was infinitely old). Hutton stated that "the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle."[12]+ + + + − Hutton's main line of argument was that the tremendous displacements and changes he was seeing did not happen in a short period of time by means of catastrophe, but that the incremental processes of uplift and erosion happening on the Earth in the present day had caused them. As these processes were very gradual, the Earth needed to be ancient, in order to allow time for the changes to occur. Before long, scientific inquiries building upon his claims had pushed back the age of the Earth into the millions of years — still much younger than commonly accepted by modern scientists, but a great change from the literalist view of an Earth that was only a few thousand years old.[13]+ + − Hutton's ideas, called uniformitarianism, or Gradualism were popularized by Sir Charles Lyell in the early 19th century. The energetic advocacy of Lyell led to the public and scientific communities largely accepting an ancient Earth. This philosophy governed the interpretation of geological data by the Reverends William Buckland, Adam Sedgwick and other early geologists. By mid-century, mainstream science had abandoned Young Earth creationism as a serious hypothesis. It became therefore important for biblical scholars as well as Christian scientists to harmonize the Genesis account with new scientific results into a 'new geology'.[14]+ + + − John H Mears was one such scholar who proposed several theories varying from a mix of long/indefinite periods with moments of creation to a day-age theory of indefinite 'days'. He subscribed to the latter theory (indefinite days) and found support from the side of James Dwight Dana, Professor at Yale and one of the fathers of Mineralogy who wrote a paper consisting of 4 articles named 'Science and the Bible' on the topic.[15] With the acceptance by many biblical scholars of a reinterpretation of Genesis 1 in the light of the breakthrough results of Lyell and supported by a number of renowned (christian) scientific scholars, a new hurdle was taken in the future acceptance of Developmentalism (based on Darwin's Natural selection). [16] − In the 20th century, many religious groups abandoned (Young Earth) creationism as a literal description of the Earth's history altogether and came to regard the biblical account of creation in Genesis as purely allegorical or mythological.[citation needed] + + + + − + − + − In the 1950’s, Price's work came under severe criticism, particularly by Bernard Ramm in his book The Christian View of Science and Scripture. Together with J. Laurence Kulp, a geologist and in fellowship with the Plymouth Brethren,and other scientists[19], Ramm influenced Christian organisations such as the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) in not supporting flood geology.+ − Price's work was subsequently adapted and updated by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb Jr. in their book The Genesis Flood in 1961. Morris and Whitcomb argued that the Earth was geologically recent and that the Great Flood had laid down most of the geological strata in the space of a single year, reviving pre-Uniformitarian arguments. Given this history, they argued, "the last refuge of the case for evolution immediately vanishes away, and the record of the rocks becomes a tremendous witness... to the holiness and justice and power of the living God of Creation!"[20]+ − This became the foundation of a new generation of Young Earth creationist thinkers, who organized themselves around Morris' Institute for Creation Research. Sister organizations such as the Creation Research Society have sought to re-interpret geological formations within a Young Earth creationist viewpoint. Langdon Gilkey writes,+ + + + + + + − ... no distinction is made between scientific theories on the one hand and philosophical or religious theories on the other, between scientific questions and the sorts of questions religious beliefs seek to answer... It is, therefore, no surprise that in their theological works, as opposed to their creation science writings, creationists regard evolution and all other theories associated with it, as the intellectual source for and intellectual justification of everything that is to them evil and destructive in modern society. For them all that is spiritually healthy and creative has been for a century or more under attack by "that most complex of godless movements spawned by the pervasive and powerful system of evolutionary uniformitarianism", "If the system of flood geology can be established on a sound scientific basis... then the entire evolutionary cosmology, at least in its present neo-Darwinian form, will collapse. This in turn would mean that every anti-Christian system and movement (communism, racism, humanism, libertarianism, behaviorism, and all the rest) would be deprived of their pseudo-intellectual foundation", "It [evolution] has served effectively as the pseudo-scientific basis of atheism, agnosticism, socialism, fascism, and numerous faulty and dangerous philosophies over the past century"[21]+ − Morris' ideas had a considerable impact on creationism and fundamentalist Christianity. Armed with the backing of conservative organizations and individuals, his brand of "creation science" was widely promoted throughout the United States and overseas, with his books being translated into at least ten different languages.+ − In 1978, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy developed the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy which included the following:+ + + + + − WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about Earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.[22]+ − As of 2007 a USA Today/Gallup poll indicated that 53% of US adults agreed with the statement "human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life." Whereas 66% of US adults agreed with the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."[23]+ + + + − The revival of Young Earth creationism has had a periodic impact on science education, particularly in the United States, where periodic controversies have raged over the appropriateness of teaching Young Earth creationist doctrine and creation science in public schools (see Teach the Controversy) side by side with the theory of evolution.+ − + + + + − + − Young Earth creationism has always been the stated position of the Oriental Orthodox Church, without having gone through any decline and revival. Fr. Tadros Y. Malaty, a Coptic Orthodox scholar, expresses the typical Oriental Orthodox view as follows:+ + + − Using mathematical calculations, man cannot be more than 6,000 years old. Assuming that every family had three children (a low number compared to previous centuries) and after accounting for natural death catastrophes and wars, we find that the world's population would approximate what it actually is now. If human history goes back a million years, then the world's population would have needed several times the land space we have now.[26]+ + − [edit] Characteristics and beliefs+ − [edit] Age of the Earth+ − Young Earth creationists believe that the Earth is "young", on the order of 6,000 to 10,000 years old,[27] rather than the age of 4.6 billion years calculated by modern geology using geochronological methods including radiometric dating. Young Earth creationists typically derive their range of figures using the ages given in the genealogies and other dates in the Bible, similar to the process used by James Ussher (1581–1656), Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, when he dated creation at 4004 BC. Ussher's chronology, published in 1650, has been subsequently revised many times, most recently in 2003 by Larry and Marion Pierce.[28]+ + + + + − Young Earth creationists believe that life was created by God 'each after their kind' in the universe's first six normal-length (24-hour) days. Additionally, they believe that the biblical account of Noah's flood is historically true, maintaining that there was a worldwide flood (circa 2349 BC) that destroyed all terrestrial life except that which was saved on Noah's Ark. (Barry Setterfield proposed in 1999 that the flood occurred much earlier around 3536 BC.) They assert that this global flood caused a multitude of geological features that scientists regard as evidence of an old Earth.+ + + + + + + − [edit] Attitude towards science+ − Young Earth creationism is normally characterized as opposing evolution, though it also opposes many claims and theories in the fields of physics and chemistry (especially absolute dating methods), geology, astronomy, cosmology, molecular biology, genomics, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology and any other fields of science that have developed theories or made claims incompatible with the Young Earth version of world history. Young Earth Creationists are fundamentally opposed to any explanation for the origins of anything which replaces God as the universal creator as stated in the Bible, whether it be the origins of biological diversity, the origins of life or the origins of the universe itself. This has led some Young Earth Creationists to criticize intelligent design, a proposal which some see as an alternative form of creationism, for not taking a stand on the age of the Earth, special creation, or even the identity of the designer. Some Young Earth Creationists see this as too compromising.[29] − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − + − Young Earth creationists regard the Bible as a historically accurate, factually inerrant record of natural history. They accept its authority as the central organizing text for human life — the sole indisputable source of knowledge on every topic with which it deals. As Henry Morris, a leading Young Earth creationist, explained it, Christians who flirt with less-than-literal readings of biblical texts are also flirting with theological disaster.[30][31] For the vast majority of Young Earth creationists, an allegorical reading of the Genesis accounts of Creation, the Fall, the Deluge, and the Tower of Babel would undermine core Christian doctrines like the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ. According to Morris, Christians must "either ... believe God's Word all the way, or not at all."[30]Therefore, Young Earth Creationists take the account of Genesis to be a historical account of the origin of the Earth and life. The corollary is that many Young Earth Creationists regard Christians who do not regard Genesis as historically accurate as being inconsistent.+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − + − Young Earth creationists interpret the text of Genesis in a strictly literal fashion. Therefore, they believe that God created the world in six normal-length days, and planted the Garden of Eden for the habitation of an original human couple (Adam and Eve). As a result of the subsequent Fall of Man, humanity was forced to work hard to provide food, childbirth became painful, and physical death entered the world. Some Young Earth Creationists assert that prior to the Fall all animals were herbivores (see below).+ − The Genealogies of Genesis record the line of descent from Adam through Noah to Abraham. Young Earth Creationists interpret these genealogies literally, including the old ages of the men; up to Methuselah who lived 969 years. Differences of opinion exist regarding whether the genealogies should be taken as complete or abbreviated, hence the 6,000 to 10,000 year range usually quoted for the Earth's age. Proponents of Old Earth Creationism, tend to interpret the genealogies as incomplete, and usually interpret the days of Genesis 1 figuratively as long periods of time.+ − Young Earth Creationists believe that the great flood described in Genesis 6-9 was global in extent, and submerged the highest mountains on Earth. A range of suggestions are made to account for the mechanism for such a deluge. Earlier generations (following the lead of Morris and Whitcomb) believed that an orbiting vapor canopy collapsed, generating extreme rainfall (from "windows of heaven"). In more recent times it has been proposed that radical geological activity (the opening of the "fountains of the great deep") was largely responsible for the flood — elaborate theories such as Catastrophic plate tectonics and hydroplates have been put forward by some. These theories have the added benefit of explaining how the flood transformed an originally flatter Earth, raising up mountains and dropping sea beds; this then solves the problem of finding sufficient water to cover Mount Everest. Whatever the case, almost all Young Earth creationists refer to a loosely codified idea called "Flood geology" to argue that the vast majority of present-day geological features are the result of the Great Flood.+ − To support their belief in a worldwide flood, YECs argue that anthropological evidence supports their belief that every culture studied has, in its history, a myth or story similar to that of Noah in two aspects: 1) the occurrence of a catastrophic flood and 2) human and animal life saved by a man who built a large boat and took aboard it for the duration of the flood enough life to repopulate the Earth.[citation needed] According to Genesis, two of every "unclean" kind of animal (male and female) and seven of every "clean" kind of animal were placed on the ark during the flood.+ − − After the flood, Genesis reports increasingly shortened lifespans dropping quickly from an average of 900 years at the time of Noah to an average of 100 by the time of Abraham. Some Young Earth creationists have suggested that this is due to effects associated with inbreeding that took place after the flood, as only eight people remained.[32] Another theory[citation needed] suggests that the Earth had a higher concentration of oxygen prior to the Flood, possibly due to a layer of water vapor ("vapor canopy") above the Earth. The result of such a postulation would be a giant Hyperbaric Chamber, extending lifespans. Yet others hypothesize that the "firmament" of the "waters above" screened the Earth from harmful ultraviolet rays, which they argue, shorten life expectancy. − − − [edit] Human history − In keeping with a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis, Young Earth creationists believe that Adam and Eve were the universal ancestors of the entire human race; accordingly it is usually held that their sons and daughters married amongst themselves to produce the next generation of children.[33] Noah's flood is supposed to have killed all humans on Earth with the exception of Noah and his sons and their wives. All humans alive today are therefore believed to be descended from this single family, which carried the gene pool for the entire human race. In contradiction to what is accepted by anthropologists, Young Earth creationists assert that native Americans, Australian aborigines and all other races arose from the migration of people around the world following the Tower of Babel event in the 3rd millennium BC. − − Genealogies in the Genesis text identify individuals named Egypt, Gomer, Sheba, Canaan, and Sidon, who are said to have founded the cities and civilizations that were later to bear their names. − − − [edit] Animal behavior − Young Earth creationists usually interpret Genesis to teach that prior to the Fall of man there was no predatory or carnivorous activity amongst animals, and animals did not die. It is thought that all animals, together with humans, subsisted on an entirely vegetarian diet.[34] This raises the question of what was the original (i.e. pre-Fall) function of such things as snake venom and spiders webs. YECs typically answer these questions either by postulating a non-lethal original purpose for these predatory mechanisms (eg. snake venom was designed to soften fruit), or suggesting that these mechanisms were miraculously added to animals by God or the devil at the time of the Fall.[35] − − The implication of these ideas - that before the Fall animals would eventually exceed the carrying capacity of the Earth - is not considered a problem by some YECs since they believe that the Earth did not remain in its unfallen state for any (generationally) appreciable time.[36] − − − [edit] Diversification of life − YECs also assert that all modern species of land vertebrates are descended from those original animals on the ark. Most YECs believe that the Ark "kinds" diversified as they subsequently adapted to their environments by the process of variation and rapid natural selection. The selection of such animals as kangaroo and koalas on the ark is based upon hypothesized sunken land bridges between Australia and South East Asia, over which Noah or his sons, or the ancestors of the animals themselves, could travel. Many YECs assert that the process of variation and natural selection resulted in a net loss of genetic information. − − − [edit] Palaeontology and dinosaurs − The significance of this issue to young Earth creationists has its roots in a biblical interpretation of the fall of man that results in sin bringing death into the world, not just for mankind but for all creatures.[37] − − As it is a modern coinage derived from Greek, the Bible does not use the word "dinosaur",[38] but the Hebrew word tanniyn (/tan·ˈnin/) has been interpreted as referring to them by some Christians.[39]In English translations, tanniyn may be translated as “sea monster” or “serpent”, but it is usually translated as “dragon”. These creatures are mentioned nearly thirty times in the Old Testament and are found both on land and in the water. At another point, the Bible describes a huge creature called a "behemoth" (Job 40:15-24) that "moves his tail like a cedar"; the behemoth is described as ranking "first among the works of God" and as impossible to capture (vs. 24). Some Biblical scholars identify the behemoth as either an elephant, a hippopotamus, or a bull, but as these animals have very thin tails that are not comparable to the size of a cedar tree; creationists often identify the behemoth with sauropod dinosaurs. Other creationists refer to "behemoth" as the Brachiosaurus, since the Bible says in Job, "He is the chief of the ways of God." Meaning he is the largest animal God created. [39] However, certain scholars postulate that the reference to the cedar tree actually refers to its needle-like leaves, which resemble the bristly hair present on the tails of modern elephants, rhinoceroses, and hippopotamuses.[40] Other critics contend that the word "tail" is a euphemism for the animal's penis, and that the passage should be understood as describing its virility.[41][42] − − − Carcass found by the Zuiyo Maru, said to be a plesiosaur-like creature by some creationists; scientists who have studied it concluded the remains to belong to a basking shark.The Leviathan is another creature referred to in the Bible's Old Testament; it is described as having a variety of dinosaur, dragon, and water-serpent-like characteristics. Some scholars identify the Leviathan in Job c. 41 with the nile crocodile, or point out that it has seven heads and is purely mythical. As with the behemoth, creationists have sometimes tried to connect the Leviathan with the dinosaurs.[43] − − Young Earth creationists do not deny the existence of dinosaurs and other extinct animals present in the fossil record.[44][45] Usually, they assert that the fossils represent the remains of animals that perished in the Great Flood. Most believe that Noah took the dinosaurs with him in his Ark[46], and that they gradually became extinct as a result of a vastly different post-flood environment.[47] The newly-established Creation Museum in Kentucky portrays humans and dinosaurs co-existing before the Flood. For many years, YECs referred to supposed associated human and dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy Riverbed of Glen Rose, Texas as proof of coexistence, though most now have abandoned these claims, as careful scrutiny has shown them to be either fabrications or spurious phenomena.[48] Some creationists assert that living dinosaurs (as well as other extinct creatures such as plesiosaurs) still survive in isolated spots, accounting for alleged sightings of lake or sea monsters.[49] Other creationists urge caution about alleged plesiosaurs living today, since rotting basking sharks can form a pseudo-plesiosaur shape.[50] Creationists sometimes turn to cryptozoology to support the idea that creatures known from fossils lived alongside humans in historical times. − − One view proposed by some is that the serpent in the Garden of Eden may have actually been a type of dinosaur.[51] They point out that, according to Christian interpretation, God was speaking to the Devil when he cursed the serpent, not to an ordinary snake. Young Earth creationists occasionally claim that dinosaurs survived in Australia, and that Aboriginal legends of reptilian monsters are evidence of this[52], referring to what is known as Megalania (Varanus priscus). However, Megalania was a gigantic monitor lizard, and not a dinosaur, as its discoverer, Richard Owens, realized that the skeletal remains were that of a lizard, and not an archosaur. − − − [edit] Comparison with other forms of creationism − Young Earth creationism is only one of several forms of creationism. Young Earth creationists typically oppose these alternative theories, which they consider to be as "compromises" with science[53] or otherwise flawed. − − − [edit] Old Earth creationism − See also: Old Earth creationism. − Young Earth creationists reject Old Earth creationism and Day-Age Creationism on textual and theological grounds. In addition, Young Earth creationists claim the scientific data in geology and astronomy point to a young Earth, against the consensus of the general scientific community. − − Young Earth creationists generally hold that when Genesis describes the creation of the Earth occurring over a period of days, this indicates normal-length 24 hour days, and cannot reasonably be interpreted otherwise. They agree that the Hebrew word for "day" (yôm) can refer to either a 24-hour day or a long or unspecified time, but argue that whenever the latter interpretation is used it includes a preposition defining the long or unspecified period. In the specific context of Genesis 1, since the days are both numbered and are referred to as "evening and morning", this can mean only normal-length days. Further, they argue that the 24-hour day is the only interpretation that makes sense of the Sabbath command in Exodus 20:8–11. YECs argue that it is a glaring exegetical fallacy to take a meaning from one context (yom referring to a long period of time in Genesis 1) and apply it to a completely different one (yom referring to normal-length days in Exodus 20).[54] − − Further, Young Earth creationists argue that their position is the only way to explain the Fall, which introduced death and suffering into the world. They argue that all long-age views entail death before sin, which they regard as a severe theological error, violating Genesis 3, and for Christians, Romans 5:12–19, 8:17–22 and 1 Corinthians 15:21–22.[55]. Further discussion and refutation of these objections can be found on the Day-Age Creationism page. − − − [edit] Gap creationism − See also: Gap creationism. − The "gap theory" acknowledges a vast age for the universe, including the Earth and solar system, while asserting that life was created recently in six 24-hour days by divine fiat. Genesis 1 is thus interpreted literally, with an indefinite "gap" of time inserted between the first two verses. (Some gap theorists insert a "primordial creation" and Lucifer's rebellion into the gap.) − − Most Young Earth creationist organizations reject the gap theory, and say it is unscriptural, unscientific, and not necessary, in its various forms.[56][57] It is asserted that the entire universe is only thousands of years old. − − − [edit] The Omphalos hypothesis − Many Young Earth creationists distinguish their own hypotheses from the Omphalos hypothesis, today more commonly referred to as the apparent age concept, put forth by the science writer Philip Henry Gosse. Gosse's hypothesis was an unsuccessful mid-19th century attempt to reconcile creationism with geology. He proposed that just as Adam had a navel (omphalos is Greek for navel), evidence of a gestation he never experienced, so also the Earth was created ex nihilo complete with evidence of a prehistoric past that never actually occurred. Gosse's hypothesis allows for a young Earth without giving rise to any predictions that would contradict scientific findings of an old Earth. This was rejected at the time by scientists on the grounds that it was completely unfalsifiable and by theologians because it implied a deceitful God, which was theologically unacceptable. − − Most YECs today argue that Adam did not have a navel,[58] and in contrast to Gosse, posit that not only is the Earth young but the scientific data supports that view. However, the apparent age concept is still used in Young Earth creationist literature.[59][60][61] − − − [edit] Criticism − − [edit] Scientific − Young Earth creationism was abandoned as a mainstream scientific concept around the start of the 19th century.[62] Many scientists see it as a faith position, and regard attempts to prove it scientifically as being little more than religiously motivated pseudoscience. In 1997, a poll by the Gallup organization showed that 5% of US adults with professional degrees in science took a young earth creationist view. In the aforementioned poll 40% of the same group said that they believed that life, including humans, had evolved over millions of years, but that God guided this process; a view described as theistic evolution, while 55% held a view of "naturalistic evolution" in which God took no part in this process.[63] Some scientists who believe in creationism are known to subscribe to other forms such as Old Earth creationism which posits an act of creation that took place millions or billions of years ago, with variations on the timing of the creation of mankind. Kent Hovind commented on discussing the topic of people asking, "Couldn't God use Evolution to create?" He gives the answer, "Well, it wouldn't be the God of the Bible! The "god" that would use an evolutionary process is cruel, and wasteful, and retarded! Doesn't he know what He wants? Can't He just make it right in six days? Poof! Or six seconds!"[cite this quote] − − Critics argue that every challenge to evolution by Young Earth creationists 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 theologians, although creationists claim that their models are based on what is known, not on gaps in knowledge. − − Christian Young Earth creationists 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 creationist organizations Answers in Genesis (AiG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) require all members to pledge support for biblical inerrancy. − − Young Earth creationists often suggest that supporters of evolution theory are primarily motivated by atheism. Critics reject this claim by pointing out that many supporters of evolutionary theory are in fact religious believers, and that major religious groups such as the Roman Catholic Church and Church of England believe that the concept of biological evolution does not imply a rejection of the scriptures. Nor do they support the specific doctrines of biblical inerrancy proposed by Young Earth creationism. Critics also point out that workers in fields related to evolutionary biology are not required to sign statements of belief in evolution comparable to the biblical inerrancy pledges required by ICR and AiG. This is contrary to the popular belief of creationists that scientists operate on an a priori disbelief in biblical principles[64]. Young Earth creationists also discount Christian faith positions, like those of French Jesuit priest, geologist and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who saw that his work with evolutionary sciences actually confirmed and inspired his faith in the cosmic Christ. Nor do they believe the views of Catholic priest Fr. Thomas Berry, a cultural historian and eco-theologian, that the cosmological 13 billion year "Universe Story" provides all faiths and all traditions a single account by which the divine has made its presence in the world. − − Proponents of YEC are regularly accused of quote mining, the dishonest practice of isolating passages from academic texts that appear to support their claims while deliberately excluding context and conclusions to the contrary.[65] − − − [edit] Theological − − − One example is that God created the Earth and heavens, and light, on Day 1, plant life on Day 3, and the sun and moon on Day 4. One must ask where the light in Day 1 came from, and why there were plants in Day 3 if the sun, which provides all light to the Earth, did not even exist until Day 4.[66] Young Earth creationists such as Basil the Great and John Calvin answered this by suggesting that the light created by God on Day 1 was the light source. Answers in Genesis has refined this by suggesting that the Earth was already rotating with respect to this light.[67] One can also make a case that God created the plants toward the evening of Day 3, the Sun was created on the morning of Day 4, therefore the plants only had to endure darkness for a period not much longer than a typical night. − − Another problem is the fact that distant galaxies can be seen. If the universe did not exist until 10,000 years ago, then light from anything farther than 10,000 light-years would not have time to reach us. Most cosmologists accept an inflation model as the likely explanation for the horizon problem. Inflationary models also account for other phenomena, and are in agreement with observations of recent microwave anisotropy satellites. Creationists have also proposed models to explain why we see distant starlight.[68][69] See creationist cosmologies for more information. − − Many critics claim that Genesis itself is internally inconsistent on the question of whether man was created before the animals (Genesis 2:19) or after the animals as stated in Genesis 1. 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 KJV and NIV).[70] 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[71], 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."[72] However, that view of the inerrancy of scripture was rejected by Paul VI in the formulation of Dei Verbum 11 forcing the commission to adjust the wording and add crucial footnotes to keep it in line with prior teaching. The relater then said that it was not to be understood as limiting biblical inerrancy to only matters of salvation. However that view has since become predominant due to the deliberate decision to interpret it in a heterodox manner regardless of what it was truly asserting.[improper synthesis?][clarify] By contrast, Young Earth creationists 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.[73] − − While some theologians believe there is an inherent conflict between the Bible and science, popular Christian thought holds to the value of science in understanding the physical world. In this view the Bible serves to give understanding about God and the state of mankind (of which the accuracy of the Genesis account is a factor) and that supposed clashes between them are merely a matter of faulty understanding. Christian theologians and scientists like Augustine of Hippo and Gallileo held that, the literality creation in Genesis were believed to be true at the time, it doesn't destroy Christianity to suggest future scientific discoveries might change the way we view this account but, in the same way science could clarify the content of Scripture, it could also stand opposed to it and neither of these men ever proposed that science was superior or more reliable than the Bible.[clarify] This theological understanding is also upheld by the majority of Young Earth creationists — that science is a very useful tool but still only a tool and that if, by science, something is found to contradict with the Bible, we should first question the science before trying to shift our understanding of the Bible. − − Aside from the theological doubts voiced by other Christians, Young Earth creationism also stands in opposition to the creationist mythologies of other religions (both 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). − − − [edit] References − ^ a b James-Griffiths, P. "Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition". Creation 26 (2): 53-55. Retrieved on 2007-07-03. − ^ Christianity and Judaism being the two major religions for which Genesis is canonical. − ^ The First Six Days (of Creation): Confronting the God-Plus-Evolution Myth. Retrieved on 2007-08-25. − ^ Sheppard, P (2005). The Smithsonian/Sternberg controversy. Answers in Genesis. Retrieved on 2007-07-03. − ^ Buckna, D (2007). Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?. Answers in Genesis. Retrieved on 2007-07-03. − ^ Unruh, B (2006). Congress slams Smithsonian's anti-religious attacks. Retrieved on 2007-07-03. − ^ United States House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform (2006). US Congressional Committee Report: INTOLERANCE AND THE POLITICIZATION OF SCIENCE AT THE SMITHSONIAN. The Discovery Institute. Retrieved on 2007-07-03. − ^ IAP Statement on the teaching of evolution. the Interacademy Panel on international issues (2006). Retrieved on 2007-07-03. − ^ Cherry, S (2006). Crisis management via Bilbical Interpretation: Fundamentalism, Modern Orthodoxy, and Genesis in Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism (Cantor, G Swetlitz, M, editors. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226092775. − ^ Origen: < 10,000 years, Celsus, 1.20; Augustine: < 5,600 years, City 12.11; Eusebius: 5,228 years, Chronicle; Clement 5,592 years, Miscellanies 1.21 − ^ Moore, James. Evolution and Wonder - Understanding Charles Darwin. Speaking of Faith (Radio Program). American Public Media. Retrieved on 2007-06-27. − ^ 'Theory of the Earth', a paper (with the same title of his 1795 book) communicated to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and published in Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1785; cited with approval in Holmes, A., Principles of Physical Geology, 2nd edition, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pp. 43–44, 1965. − ^ Theory of the Earth full text (1788 version) − ^ Uniformitarianism: Charles Lyell, University of California Museum of Paleontology − ^ Dana, Phd. Professor at Yale, James Dwight (1856-1857). Science and the Bible, a review of and the six days of creation of Prof. Lewis Taylor. Bibl. Soc.. URL: Prof. James Dwight Dana, Science and the Bible, online version − ^ Bible.org, Darwinism and New England Theology (2004). Retrieved on 2007-07-08. − ^ The Creationists (Expanded Edition), p92, 106 Ronald Numbers, 2006 — which explicitly describes Price as an "armchair scientist" − ^ Marston, P & Forster, R (2001). Reason Science and Faith. Monarch Books. ISBN 978-1579106614. Retrieved on 2007-06-30. − ^ Radiocarbon Dating and American Evangelical Christians − ^ Whitcomb, JC (1960). The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications. P&R Publishing. ISBN 978-0875523385 − ^ (Gilkey, 1998, p. 35; quotations from Henry Morris). − ^ Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition. Bible Research (1978). Retrieved on 2007-07-03. − ^ [ http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm USA Today/Gallup Poll. June 1-3, 2007. N=1,007 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.] − ^ Church Denominations, Creation Science − ^ Philip Porvaznik. Dialogue on Evolution versus Creationism. Catholic Apologetics International. Retrieved on 2007-10-10. − ^ Fr. Tadros Y. Malaty, Commentary on the Book of Genesis (1998) p. 22. − ^ Evidence for a young Earth − ^ Jonathan Sarfati. Archbishop’s achievement. Answers in Genesis. − ^ Carl Wieland (30 August 2002). AiG’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement. Answers in Genesis. − ^ a b Morris, HM (2000). The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict. Master Books. ISBN 978-0890512913. − ^ Morris, HM (2000). Biblical Creationism: What Each Book of the Bible Teaches About Creation & the Flood. Master Books. ISBN 978-0890512937. − ^ Carl Wieland. Living for 900 years. Answers in Genesis. − ^ Cain’s wife — who was she?. Answers In Genesis. − ^ Creation’s original diet and the changes at the Fall. Answers in Genesis. − ^ How did bad things come about?. Answers in Genesis. − ^ Wayne A. Grudem "Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine", Zondervan, 1996. ISBN 0-3102-8670-0 − ^ Ham, Ken. What happened to the dinosaurs?. Retrieved on 2007-03-14. − ^ The term was first used by Robert Owen in 1842 − ^ a b Dinosaurs and the Bible. Clarifying Christianity' (2005). Retrieved on 2007-03-14. − ^ Bright, Michael (2006). Beasts of the Field: The Revealing Natural History of Animals in the Bible, p346. 1861058314. − ^ Pennock, Robert T. (2000). Tower of Babel: the evidence against the new creationism. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-66165-9. − ^ CH711: Behemoth a Dinosaur. Retrieved on 2007-09-13. − ^ Claim CH711.1: Leviathan as a dinosaur. the TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-03-14. − ^ Dinosaurs and the Bible. Answers in Genisis. Retrieved on 2007-12-23. − ^ In Evolution Debate, Creationists Are Breaking New Ground. The Washington Post. − ^ Dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark: US museum. ABC News (Australia). Retrieved on 2007-11-06. − ^ What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs? - Answers in Genesis − ^ Edwords, Frederick. Seeing the Light. Humanist. − ^ Creation Science Evangelism - Creation, Evolution, Dinosaurs, and the Bible − ^ Letting rotting sharks lie − ^ To The Ends Of The Earth--Dinosaurs in the Bible. Retrieved on 2007-09-14. − ^ Driver, Rebecca. Australia’s Aborigines ... did they see dinosaurs?. Answers in Genesis. Retrieved on 2007-03-14. − ^ Get Answers: Creation Compromises − ^ How long were the days of Genesis 1? − ^ The Fall: a cosmic catastrophe − ^ Henry M. Morris (December 1987). The gap theory — an idea with holes?. Retrieved on 2007-02-14. − ^ Don Batten (June 2004). ‘Soft’ gap sophistry. Retrieved on 2007-02-14. − ^ Did Adam have a belly-button? − ^ Apologetics Press - Apparent Age − ^ The Apparent Age Argument − ^ Appearance of Age - theology overview & web-links − ^ History of Science: Early Modern Geology. Retrieved on 2007-09-24. − ^ Gallup Poll 1997. − ^ Amazing admission − ^ Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists − ^ A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account (Part 1 of 2) - Answers in Genesis − ^ How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal before the sun was created? − ^ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang − ^ Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old? - Answers in Genesis − ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp Biblical Exegesis − ^ http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Resources/Scripture/ (October 2005) − ^ Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible - Times Online − ^ ‘But Genesis is not a science textbook’ − − [edit] See also − Creationism Portal − Young Earth Creationist cosmologies − Flood Geology − History of Creationism − Dating Creation − Rapid-decay theory − Ussher chronology − Existence − Timeline of the Universe − Ultimate fate of the Universe − Creator god − Day-Age Creationism − Gap Creationism − Cosmogony − Cosmological argument − Biblical cosmology − Deism − Theism − Starlight problem − Living dinosaurs − Quran − Rationalism − Elohim − Higher criticism − Ex nihilo − Sons of Noah − Antediluvian − − − − [edit] Church bodies whose official position is YEC − Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church − Lutheran Church Missouri Synod − Protestant Reformed Churches in America − − [edit] External links − − [edit] Websites supportive of YEC − Answers in Genesis − Creation Ministries International − Institute for Creation Research − Creation science evangelism − − [edit] Young Earth videos − Critical Review of Radioisotopes & the Age of the Earth - a Young Earth video − The Evolution of a Creationist 4 part DVD - Four 15 minute clips from Dr. Jobe Martin's new DVD series − − [edit] Websites critical of YEC − The TalkOrigins Archive − No Answers In Genesis − EvoWiki − Answers In Creation - Old Earth creationist website purportedly demonstrating the errors of Young Earth creationism − − [edit] Articles − Bradshaw, Robert I., "The Early Church & the Age of the Earth" − Grigg, R., 1993. Should Genesis be taken literally?, Creation '16'(1):38–41 (principles of biblical interpretation, hermeneutics) − Steinmann, A., 2002. אחד (Echad) as an Ordinal Number and the Meaning of Genesis 1:5 (PDF), Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) 45(4):577–584 (argues that the numbering and definite article patterns of Genesis 1 indicate 24-hour days) − Hasel, G.F., 1994. The ‘days’ of creation in Genesis 1: Literal ‘days’ or figurative ‘periods/epochs’ of time?, Origins '21'(1):5–38 (defends literal days). − McCabe, R.V., 2000. A Defense of Literal Days in the Creation Week (PDF), Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal '5:'97–123, 2000 − Stambaugh, 1991. Days of Creation: A semantic approach TJ '5'(1):70–78 (analyses the meaning of Hebrew yôm ("day") in different context and long-age words, concludes that creation days were 24 hours) − Sarfati, J., 2003. Biblical chronogenealogies, TJ '17'(3):14–18 (defends Masoretic chronology of Gen. 5 & 11, and rejects gaps) − Grigg, R., 2003. Meeting the ancestors, Creation '25'(2):13–15 (on the genealogies and lifespans) − Grigg, R., 1997. From the beginning of Creation: Does Genesis have a gap?, Creation '19'(2):35–38 (why YECs reject the gap theory) − Batten, D., 1996. Some questions for theistic evolutionists (and 'progressive creationists'), from AiG, Creation '18'(3):37 − Grigg, R., 2001. Do I have to believe in a literal creation to be a Christian?, Creation '23'(3):20–22 (AiG answers "No, but …") − US poll results — Public beliefs about evolution and creation − Evowiki article on the History of Young Earth creationismthe more notable young earth creationist organizations include: [[Answers in Genesis]] (America and the United Kingdom), [[Creation Ministries International]] (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, U.S.A., and United Kingdom), [[Institute for Creation Research]] (U.S.A.), [[Creation Research Society]] (U.S.A.), and [[NorthWest Creation Network]] (Washington state, U.S.A.) which founded [[CreationWiki]].
Undo revision 448085 by Special:Contributions/BorisTheFerret (User talk:BorisTheFerret)
Young Earth creationism is the religious belief that Heaven, Earth, and life on Earth were created by a direct act of God dating between 6,000[1] and 10,000 years ago. Its adherents are those Christians and Jews[2] who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking the Hebrew text of Genesis as a literal account. Some adherents believe that existing evidence in the natural world today supports a strict interpretation of scriptural creation as historical fact, or that the scientific evidence supporting evolution, geological uniformitarianism, and other theories which are at odds with a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account, are either flawed or misinterpreted.[3]
[[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|right|thumb|300px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the creation of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]].]]
'''Young Earth Creationism''', sometimes abbreviated ''YEC'',<ref>"YEC", can refer to Young Earth Creationist or Young Earth Creationism. "YECs" refers to Young Earth Creationists. The abbreviation was likely originally used by opponents, and possibly disparagingly, but is accepted by Young Earth Creationists, who sometimes use it of themselves.</ref> is a form of [[creationism]] which holds that the [[Earth|earth]] and the [[Universe|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 evolution are at root tied to [[worldview]]s, and 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]] argue that the young universe view is the explanation that best fits the evidence.
Most other scientists regard young earth creationism as being unscientific. Many do so because they believe that things such as [[radiometric dating]] and [[biology|biological]] observations have disproved it, or for ideological reasons.
== Beliefs ==
=== Biblical ===
Young Earth creationism generally takes the following positions regarding the biblical book of [[Genesis]]:
* Creation took place over a period of six ordinary (solar/24-hour) days, with God then "resting" on the seventh day.
* This creation, described in Genesis as "good" and "very good", was without flaw or defect.
* All people are descended from the first couple, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]].
* Adam and Eve [[sin]]ned, leading to their expulsion from the [[Garden of Eden]].
* A global [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]] occurred, destroying all land-based, air-breathing life, except that on the [[Ark]].
* The dispersal of humanity was caused by God after the [[Tower of Babel]]. <ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/confusionoflanguages.html Is there any reference to the confusion of languages at Babel in early Mesopotamian literature?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>Jackson, Wayne, [http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/babel.htm The Tower of Babel—Legend or History?] [[December 17]] [[1999]] (Christian Courier).</ref>
=== Scientific ===
Young earth creationism holds that the scientific evidence is ''interpreted'' by evolutionists and other materialists as supporting their point of view, but that the same evidence can be interpreted by creationists to support the creationary point of view.
They further argue that the scientific evidence is more consistent with the creationary point of view than the evolutionary point of view.
Some specific arguments are as follows:
* The [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe, and these laws point to the universe being created by [[God]].<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref>
* The [[theory of evolution]] is at odds with scientific evidence. They often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: [[theory of evolution]] and [[creationism]]).<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/21</ref>
* Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionary scientists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref>
== Biblical exegesis ==
Young earth creationism holds that the book of Genesis is historical in nature and that [[Bible exegesis]] warrants a six-day creation with each day being 24 hours.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Days_of_creation Days of Creation] (CreationWiki).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp Genesis Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>Niessen, Richard, [http://www.icr.org/article/164/ Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory] ''Impact'' 81, March 1980.</ref>
Andrew Kulikovsky describes it as follows:
{{QuoteBox|The hermeneutic employed by most YECs is best described as the historical-grammatical method in which historical narrative (such as the book of Genesis) is interpreted as literal history, prophecy is interpreted as prophecy, poetry is interpreted as poetry, etc.
<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf Fostering fallacy] ''Journal of Creation'' 16(2) 2002, p.31-36.</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>}}
== 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>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref> and raise a number of objections to claims of an extremely old age for the earth and the [[universe]].<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA" /><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> In regards to the field of [[geology]] these scientists believe 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, [http://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> Young earth creationist scientists also believe that there are multiple lines of evidence from the field of [[geology]] showing 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> Young earth creationist scientists use a [[geologic system|geological system]] that more heavily relies on [[Catastrophism|catastrophism]] and reject the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] assumptions behind the older dates derived by secular geologists, and thus reject these dates. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record</ref> In addition, young earth creationist scientists point out that catastrophism is increasing being accepted in the field of geology. <ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref>
== Astronomy ==
[[Image:NGC .jpg|right|thumb|350px|The majestic spiral [[galaxy]] ''NGC 4414'', imaged by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] in 1995.]]
The young earth creationism view is that the various astronomical bodies such as [[planet]]s, [[star]]s, and [[galaxy|galaxies]] were supernaturally created and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html</ref> <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of various astronomical bodies are inadequate:
{{cquote| ““...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” - Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref>}}
{{cquote|"Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.” - Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 91.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref>}}
{{cquote|“We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” - Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html</ref>}}
{{cquote|“We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html</ref>}}
[edit] Revival
In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote regarding the [[Milky Way]] galaxy the following:
The rise of fundamentalist Christianity at the start of the twentieth century saw a revival of interest in Young Earth creationism, as a part of their rejection of the explanation of evolution. In 1923, George McCready Price, a Seventh-day Adventist and amateur 'armchair geologist', whose writings were based upon reading geological texts and documents, rather than field or laboratory work,[17] wrote The New Geology to provide an explicitly fundamentalist perspective on geology. The book was partly inspired by the book Patriarchs and Prophets in which Seventh-day Adventist prophet Ellen G. White described the impact of the Great flood on the shape of the Earth. This attracted only a small following, with its advocates almost all being Lutheran pastors and Seventh-day Adventists in America.[18] Harry Rimmer was another prominent exponent of similar views, at least during some of his evangelizing career (Rimmer appears to have also subscribed to "gap creationism", and a local flood, at least at some times).
:". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," [[American Scientist]] (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>
Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that corroborate the failings of current old universe paradigm explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html#wp1142334</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref>
The [[Institute for Creation Research]] has a notable essay by David Coppedge entitled "Mature at Birth: Universe Discredits Evolution" which cites recent findings which challenge an old universe paradigm.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/2946/</ref> In addition, [[Henry Morris]] has an essay regarding the subject of the failings of the old universe paradigm entitled "What Astronomers Don't Know". <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>
Young earth creationist scientists also contest the [[Big Bang theory]] stating that it is scientifically unsound.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref> <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>
=== Starlight and the Age of the Universe ===
[[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg|right|thumb|175px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]]
Anti-creationists often claim that [[star|starlight]] from millions of light years away demonstrates that the Biblical timescale of 6,000 years is in error, as insufficient time has passed for the light from distant stars to reach [[Earth]].
Creationists respond in part by pointing out that the popular Big Bang theory has its own star light-travel time problem (the horizon problem), citing the work of Dr. [[Charles W. Misner]]. <ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref>
Secondly, creationists have proposed a number of explanations for the objection, and although none are yet certain, they claim that it shows that the critics' claims that it cannot be explained is unfounded.
==== Setterfield's decay of the speed of light ====
One early explanation was that of creationist [[Barry Setterfield]], who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], Journal of Creation 16(3):7–10, December 2002.</ref>.
Critics objected to Setterfield's proposal, including on the grounds that the constancy of the speed of light is one of science's most fundamental laws.<ref name="JS">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2430/ Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?], 22nd August, 2001.</ref>
Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant (which is related to the speed of light) may have changed (although the size of the change was much smaller than proposed by Setterfield).
They subsequently published this in 2001 in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1</ref><ref name="JS" />
However, other problems with the proposal has led most creationists to abandon the idea.<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996#c_decay CMI] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#c_decay AiG] say that this is an idea that should not be used.</ref>
==== Russell Humphreys' model ====
Creationary physicist Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] proposed a model based on [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] law of relativity (as the Big Bang model is), but with a different starting assumption, a bounded universe.
Humphreys' model proposes that God created the universe much smaller than it is now, then expanded it, quoting the Bible saying that God "stretched out the heavens".
In such a scenario, time would pass at different rates on Earth and in outer parts of the universe, so that while 6,000 years went by on Earth, billions of years passed on the outer edge of the universe.
This model is also based on the [[Genesis]] account recording the days of creation according to time on Earth, rather than elsewhere.
==== John Hartnett's model ====
Young Earth creationism has failed to make an impact in more liberal circles of Christianity. For example, the Articles of Faith of the Baptist Church states no required beliefs concerning creation.[24] Some Churches such as the Roman Catholic Church, accept the possibility of theistic evolution but despite this, some individual church members support Young Earth creationism.[25]
Young earth creationist scientist Dr. [[John Hartnett]] proposes a model similar to Humphreys, wherein the Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field caused by extremely strong gravitation during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe.
He attributes the field, it's removal and the continued balance in our solar system (after the field was removed) to divine intervention. <ref>Hartnett, John G., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003.</ref>
Whilst Humphreys' model has time dilation caused only by gravity (per [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[General Theory of Relativity]]), Hartnett's model also takes into account time dilation caused by motion (God's expansion of the universe) (per Einstein's [[Special Theory of Relativity]]).
== Biology ==
[edit] Oriental Orthodox Church
According to young-Earth creationists, God separately created each ''kind'' of living thing, or ''[[baraminology|baramin]]'', to reproduce "after its kind".
Living things had built into them a capacity for variation and adaptation, but within the limits of their ''kind''.
Genetically, in the case of sexually-reproducing species, much this is due to the [[information]] carried on each living thing's [[DNA]] being a subset of the parent's DNA, with the subset of information being selected for by the process known as natural selection (described by a creationist before Darwin wrote about it).
Mutations also play a part in this variation, but only to the extent of ''destroying'' genetic information, not ''creating'' it.
Many of the ensuing variations have been classified by science as different ''species'', but this speciation is not evolution, as it does not involve the generation of new genetic information and therefore could not have produced the evolutionary "family tree".
YECs believe that most of the world's living things were wiped out by the [[Great Flood]], but that pairs of each ''kind'' that could not survive in a flood (i.e. air-breathing, land-dwelling creatures) survived the flood on [[Noah's Ark]], and from the Flood survivors all modern species have descended.
== Geology ==
YECs believe that most rocks were laid down in two main episodes.
The first was in creation week, particularly when God caused the waters of the Earth to gather together into the sea and dry land to appear.
The second was during Noah's Flood.
The effects of a global watery catastrophe would have been enormous, with massive amounts of erosion and sedimentation.
Further, many young-Earth creationists believe that there was a single supercontinent prior to the Flood, which broke up during the Flood.
This would have further contributed to a massive reshaping of the Earth's surface.
== Contrasted with evolution ==
The young earth creationism view contrasts with evolution and other aspects of the old universe view in the following ways:
* According to the [[chronogenealogies]] in the Bible, the age of the [[universe]] and [[Earth]] is approximately 6,000 years. The old universe view is that the universe started about 14,000 million years ago, and Earth was formed around 4,500 million years ago.
* The creation account has everything being created over a period of six ordinary days, whereas the old universe view has things appearing over billions of years.
* The order of creation is different. The creation account has the Earth before the sun, plants before the sun, and birds before land animals, among other differences. The old universe view is the opposite order for each of these.
* The creation account records that death didn't exist prior to the [[Fall of man|Fall]], whereas the evolutionary view is of millions of years of death and suffering prior to the appearance of [[homo sapiens|man]].
* The creation account records various living things being separately created, whereas the evolutionary view has all living things being descended from the first living cell.
== Responses to criticisms ==
Young Earth creationists challenge the methodological naturalism of the scientific method, which they conflate with philosophical naturalism, and uniformitarianism as the dominant principles of the scientific community. They assert instead that available physical evidence best supports original catastrophism and a young Earth. See Creation-evolution controversy for a more complete discussion.
Young Earth creationist responses to criticisms from atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and others include the following:
* ''The young Earth view is just one interpretation of the Bible.''
: The young Earth view is the clear intention of the authors of the Bible. See [[Creation week]] for more. Also, the young Earth view was the view of most of the church throughout most of its history. That has only changed in order to accommodate non-biblical views of history.
* ''Creationists read the Bible literally, whereas parts, such as the creation account, are really metaphor.''
: Creationists reject that they read all the Bible literally, and accept that there is metaphor an other non-literal passages in the Bible. Instead, they read the Bible the way it was meant to be understood, which in the case of the creation account, is as literal history. See [[#Biblical exegesis|Biblical exegesis]] above and [[Creation week]] for more.
* ''Evolution has scientific evidence, and creationism does not.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.
* ''Creation relies on faith, not evidence.''
: Both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration ''a priori'', not because of the evidence.
* ''If creation had scientific merit, why don't they publish their evidence in peer-reviewed scientific papers?''
: The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish. See [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]].
* ''Creationists start with a preconception and try and fit the evidence to that. Evolutionists start with the evidence.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have their worldview as a starting point. Evolutionists try and fit the evidence into their idea just as much as they accuse the creationists of doing.
* ''Because they are based on the Bible, creationists are not willing to change their views. Evolutionists will change their views as new evidence is found.''
: Creationists start with the Bible as the foundation of their views, but beyond that are willing to change their views as new evidence is found. Evolutionists are willing to change the details of how evolution works, but are not prepared to change their basic view that evolution did occur.
== Specific Arguments For a Young Earth and Universe ==
[[Image:Roth-01.gif|right|thumb|350px|The arrows point to [[Paraconformity|paraconformities]] at the [[Grand Canyon]].]]
"Many scientific arguments can be used to show that the evidence is more consistent with a recent creation than an [http://creationwiki.org/Old_Earth old Earth]. Some arguments put forward in support of a recent creation simply put an upper limit on the age of the [http://creationwiki.org/Earth Earth], [http://creationwiki.org/Solar_system solar system], or [http://creationwiki.org/Universe universe], which are inconsistent with an ancient creation"<ref name="cwye">[http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Young_earth&oldid=80836 Young earth - CreationWiki] ''(quotes taken from the March 28, 2007, version of the article)''</ref> (according to uniformitarian assumptions). The following is a list of various scientific reasons:
[edit] View of the Bible
# "The old-earth idea was developed historically, not from letting the physical facts speak for themselves but by imposing anti-biblical philosophical assumptions onto the geological observations. See the following [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/naturalismChurch.asp article]..."<ref name="aigcompelling">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp What are the most compelling evidences of a young earth - AiG]</ref>
#[[William R. Corliss]] is a respected cataloger of scientific [[anomaly|anomalies]] and the science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on Mr. Corliss's career as a cataloger of scientific anomalies.<ref>Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref> Mr. Corliss has cataloged scores of [[Anomaly|anomalies]] which challenge the old earth geology [[paradigm]].<ref>http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.net/articles/184</ref>
# "The radiometric dating methods are based on those same naturalistic, uniformitarian, anti-biblical assumptions and there is plenty of published evidence that they do not give valid dates. Besides the RATE research mentioned earlier, consider the well-researched arguments in ''[http://www.answersingenesis.org/p/10-3-090 The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods]''."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "The almost complete absence of evidence of erosion or soil layers or the activity of living things (plant roots, burrow marks, etc.) at the upper surface of the various strata (showing that the stratum did not lay there for thousands or millions of years before the next layer was deposited)."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "Polystrate fossils (usually trees) that cut through more than one layer of rock (even different kinds of rock supposedly deposited over thousands if not millions of years). The trees would have rotted and left no fossil evidence if the deposition rate was that slow."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "Soft-sediment deformation—that thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks (of various layers) are bent (like a stack of thin pancakes over the edge of a plate), as we see at the mile-deep Kaibab Upwarp in the Grand Canyon. Clearly the whole, mile-deep deposit of various kinds of sediment was still relatively soft and probably wet (not like it is today) when the earthquake occurred that uplifted one part of the series of strata."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "Many fossils that show (require) very rapid burial and fossilization. For example, soft parts (jellyfish, animal feces, scales and fins of fish) or whole, large, fully-articulated skeletons (e.g., whales or large dinosaurs such as T-Rex) are preserved. Or we find many creatures’ bodies contorted. All this evidence shows that these creatures were buried rapidly (in many cases even buried alive) and fossilized before scavengers, micro-decay organisms and erosional processes could erase the evidence. These are found all over the world and all through the various strata."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "...distant starlight is no more of a problem for young-earth creationists than it is for big bang proponents..."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
#"[[Paraconformity|Paraconformities]] challenge the old earth uniformitarian geology [[paradigm]]."<ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/36.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/2003-FSC-open/Roth-RecentCreation.htm</ref><ref>http://www.seeking-god.co.uk/id188.htm</ref><ref>http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/flood.html</ref>
# '''Geomagnetic field decay'''
#:"Observations made of the strength of Earth's magnetic field over the last 150 years show that it is decaying, which puts an upper limit on the age of the Earth. If the decay is projected back 20,000 years, the heat produced by the electric current that generates the Earth's magnetic field would have liquefied the Earth. Naturally this would make life impossible. The best model for the Earth's magnetic field and observed data places the age of Earth at 6,000 – 8,700 years."<ref name="cwye" />
#:"The total energy stored in the earth's magnetic field ("dipole" and "non-dipole") is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.12 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for ''billions of years'' are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.13 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.14 The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than '''20,000 years''' old.15"<ref name="icrye" />
#:"Presence of magnetic fields around solar system bodies (Mercury, Jupiter's moon Ganymede, Neptune, Uranus) without an obvious internal dynamo. No natural process is known which could sustain a magnetic field around these bodies - their magnetic fields should have decayed out of existence if they ever had any."<ref name="nwcn" />
# '''Pleochroic halos'''
#:"Radioactive inclusions in rock often cause concentric spheres of discoloration due to the damage caused by alpha particles as they are emitted by the radioactive substance. Pleochroic halos are the scars of radioactive decay, particularly alpha decay. These scars appear as spheres (rings when views in cross-section) in the rock surrounding a decaying radioactive atom. The size of the halo is a signature of the energy of the emission and therefore the element and isotope involved. Creationists use these halos in several ways to suggest problems with the standard uniformitarian model."<ref name="cwye" />
# '''Helium diffusion'''
#:"One type of nuclear decay is the emission of Helium nuclei known as an alpha emission. Elements like uranium and thorium produce helium in zircons as a by-product of their radioactivity. This helium seeps out of (sic) zircons quickly over a wide range of temperatures. If the zircons really are about 1.5 billion years old (the age which conventional dating gives assuming a constant decay rate), almost all of the helium should have dissipated from the zircons long ago. But there is a significant amount of helium still inside the zircons, showing their ages to be 6000 +/- 2000 years. Accelerated decay must have produced a billion years worth of helium in that short amount of time."<ref name="cwye" />
#:"Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the ''Journal of Geophysical Research'' showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain ''1.5 billion years'' worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only '''6,000''' (± 2000) '''years'''.26 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Helioseismology'''
#:"The core of the sun produces deuterium from hydrogen fusion at 5 million degrees K. The heat is transferred from the core by convection currents so it could reach surface in days, not a million years. It also leads to an age for the sun based on the deuterium/hydrogen ratio of the local interstellar medium of 6,000-12,857 years."<ref name="cwye" />
# '''Accelerated Nuclear Decay'''
#:"The main assumption of radiometric dating is that the decay rates are constant with time. If the decay rate has varied significantly over time then any date based on radioactive decay is worthless. However, if radioactive decay has been happening for Billions of years then there is insufficient argon diffusion, insufficient lead diffusion, insufficient helium in the air, and too much Helium in Rocks. Recent experiments commissioned by the RATE group indicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay has taken place, but in one or more short periods 4000 - 8000 years ago. This would shrink the alleged 4.5 billion year radioisotope age of the earth to only a few thousand years."<ref name="cwye" />
#:"Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 "Squashed" Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited '''within months''' of one another, not ''hundreds of millions of years'' apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 "Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply '''accelerated nuclear decay''' and very rapid formation of associated minerals."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.'''
#:"The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than '''a few hundred million years old''', it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least ''10 billion years'' old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies."<ref name="icrye">[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ Evidence for a Young World - Institute for Creation Research]</ref>
# '''Comets.'''
#:"According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about ''five billion'' years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than '''10,000 years'''.4"<ref name="icrye" />
#:"The origin of the comets in our solar system is a great mystery from an old universe perspective as they degrade rapidly. While evolutionary astronomers once thought the Oort cloud could account for all comets, the Kuiper belt has been revived to explain their existence."<ref name="nwcn" />
# '''Not enough mud on the sea floor.'''
#:"Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than '''12 million years'''. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged ''three billion years''. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time '''about 5,000 years ago'''."<ref name="icrye" /> (some emphasis added, but not all)
#:"Present erosion rate could produce all the existing ocean sediment in only 15 million years."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 90.</ref>
# '''Not enough sodium in the sea.'''
#:"Every year, rivers8 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.9,10 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates.10 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, ''three billion years''. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only '''62 million years'''.10 Calculations11 for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Many strata are too tightly bent.'''
#:"In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for ''hundreds of millions of years'' before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred '''less than thousands of years''' after deposition."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Biological material decays too fast.'''
#:"Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized ''200,000 years'' down to possibly as low as '''6,000 years'''.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than '''10,000 years''', yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older... Bacteria allegedly ''250 million years'' old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage. Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.'''
#:"With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be ''millions or billions of years'' old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it... These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only '''thousands''', not billions, of years old."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Not enough Stone Age skeletons.'''
#:"Evolutionary anthropologists now say that ''Homo sapiens'' existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only '''a few hundred years''' in many areas."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Agriculture is too recent.'''
#:"The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for ''185,000 years'' during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture '''for a very short time''' after the Flood, if at all."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''History is too short.'''
#:"According to evolutionists, Stone Age ''Homo sapiens'' existed for ''190,000 years'' before beginning to make written records about '''4,000 to 5,000 years''' ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''"Existence of unstable rings around planets like Saturn. Rings are not stable and will not last."'''<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Slusher, H. S. 1980. ''Age of the Cosmos''. Institute for Creation Research. pp. 65-72.</ref>
# '''Recession of the moon from the earth'''
#:"The moon is moving away from the earth gradually due to tidal activity. This movement is too fast for the earth-moon system to be 4.6 billion years old."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Huse, S. M. 1993. ''The Collapse of Evolution''. Baker Books. pp. 41-42.</ref>
# '''Shrinking sun'''
#:"Sun may be shrinking a few feet each year. Can't extrapolate this trend back to the past very far without effecting earth's environment."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Hinderliter, H. 1989. ''The Shrinking Sun. Design and Origins in Astronomy''. Creation Research Society. pp. 107-112.</ref>
# '''Absence/shortage of solar neutrinos'''
#:"Nuclear fusion in the sun's core should give off neutrinos. Experiments have not detected an adequate number of neutrinos - this is a well known problem. Some creationists have argued that this implies solar heat is due to gravity and not fusion - this would imply a young sun."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Hinderliter, H. 1989. ''The Shrinking Sun. Design and Origins in Astronomy''. Creation Research Society. pp. 113-125.</ref>
# '''Polonium Halos'''
#:"Robert Gentry's work showed that the Earth's granite was never in a molten condition, because polonium halos survive only in solid rock and the half-life of polonium is much too short to survive a multimillion-year cooling time. His results seem to indicate that the Earth was created instantaneously, in a cool condition. If true, it is clear evidence for creation and a young earth."<ref name="nwcn" />
# '''Human population growth'''
#:"If humans had been around more than a few thousand years, they would have populated the earth more quickly."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. ''The Young Earth''. Master Books. pp. 70-71.</ref>
# '''Rapid Oil Formation'''
#:"It has been claimed that oil was formed over 100 millions of years from organic remains, but recent experiments have shown that oil can be produced under the right conditions in a matter of minutes."<ref name="nwcn" />
#:"Experiments by the U.S. Bureau of mines showed that petroleum (oil) can be produced from organic material in only 20 minutes."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Hayden R. Appell, Y.C. Fu, Sam Friedman, et al, “Converting Organic Wastes to Oil,” RL-7560 (Washington, D.C., United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, 1971.)</ref>
#:"British scientists claimed to have invented a way to turn household garbage into oil suitable for home heating or power plant use. 'We are doing in 10 minutes what it has taken nature 150 million years to do', said Noel McAuliffe of Manchester University..."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Sentinel Star, 2/26/1982</ref>
#:"Bottom line - Economic accumulations of oil and gas can be generated in thousands of years in sedimentary basins that have experienced hot fluid flow for similar durations."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>The Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia No. 24, 1996, p.</ref>
# '''Rapid Wood Petrification'''
#:"Petrified wood was believed to required thousands or even millions of years, but a US patent now exists that is able to produce petrified wood rapidly."<ref name="nwcn" />
#:"A mineralized sodium silicate solution for the application to wood has a composition causing it to penetrate the wood and jell within the wood so as to give the wood the non-burning characteristics of petrified wood."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>US Patent & Trademark Office, [http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,612,050.PN.&OS=PN/4,612,050&RS=PN/4,612,050 Patent No. 4,612,050]</ref>
# '''Tree rings'''
#:"Tree rings, including rings on petrified forest trees, can't be traced back more than some thousands of years."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, H. M. 1961. The Genesis Flood. pp. 392-393.</ref>
# '''Only recently known civilizations'''
#:"Earliest known civilizations are only a few thousand years old."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 70.</ref>
# '''Niagara falls'''
#:"Erosion of the system indicates it is only a few thousand years old."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 48-49.</ref>
# '''Mississippi river delta'''
#:"Erosion rate and amount of sediment accumulated indicate that it is only a few thousand years old."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Mehlert, A. W. "Another Look at the Age and History of the Mississippi River." pp. 121-123. Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1988.</ref>
# '''Lack of equilibrium of Carbon-14/Carbon-12 ratio'''
#:"This ratio should reach equilibrium in the atmosphere in only some thousands of years, but it hasn't reached that point yet."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 73-74.</ref>
# '''Erosion rate of the continents'''
#:"Continental mass divided by erosion rate would wash all the continents into the ocean in about 14 million years."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 88-90.</ref>
== Adherents of Young Earth Creationism ==
[edit] Interpretation of Genesis
Young Earth Creationism is a subset of [[Creationism]] most commonly found among members of the [[Abrahamic religion]]s, especially [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]] (for details please see: [[Creationism]]). In regards to early Judaism and early Christianity,
early [[Judaism]] supported young earth creationism and a majority of the early [[church fathers]] held the young earth creationist view.<ref>James-Griffiths, James,[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition] ''Creation'' 26(2):53–55, March 2004.</ref><ref>Bradshaw, Robert I., [http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm Creationism & the Early Church, chapter 3, The Days of Genesis 1]</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf</ref>
== Organizations and publications ==
=== Organizations ===
Some of the more notable young earth creationist organizations include: [[Answers in Genesis]] (America and the United Kingdom), [[Creation Ministries International]] (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, U.S.A., and United Kingdom), [[Institute for Creation Research]] (U.S.A.), [[Creation Research Society]] (U.S.A.), and [[NorthWest Creation Network]] (Washington state, U.S.A.) which founded [[CreationWiki]].
Some theologians oppose the proposition that God can be a legitimate or viable subject for scientific experimentation, and reject a literal interpretation of Genesis. They propose there are statements in the creation week itself which render the historical interpretation of Genesis incompatible with scientific evidence.
=== Magazines and newsletters ===
=== Magazines and newsletters ===