What do you think?
Christianity and the age of the earth
Dr. Davis A Young a scientist with outstanding academic credentials and a thoroughly orthodox evangelical Christian has presented in this volume solid and convincing evidence for the thesis that the earth is an extremely old planet created by God. This book demonstrates how well-meaning creationist (Dr. Young is also a creationist in the term) have misrepresented the evidence of geology in their attempt to argue that the earth is only a few thousand years old. It is important in our time to give serious consideration to both biblical and scientific evidence. In this book Dr. Young carefully examines the evidence and finds that it does not support the young-earth view. Because of the literature advancing biblical catastrophism the interest of Christian layman and attempts to introduce the catastrophist view of earth history into public school curricula the Christian community should seriously consider this issue of the age of the earth. Does the biblical and scientific evidence support the idea that the earth is extremely young or does the evidence indicate otherwise? Has the earth experienced a brief sudden catastrophic history dominated by a single global flood or has it's history been vastly longer and somewhat less spectacular? In this book the author examines some of the evidence of nature that relates to the age of the earth. Part I of the book surveys the history of Christian thought with regard to the age of the earth. Part II deals with the stratigraphy sedimentation the Flood radiometric dating the earth's magnetic field and geochemical arguments. Part III is an appeal to the facts that make the young-earth view untenable. Dr. Young firmly believes that the continued promotion of the young-earth view will in the long run damage the credibility of Christianity and thus hinder our evangelistic and apologetic efforts. Paperback 188 pages
Paperback
First published January 1, 1988
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
March 18, 2019
Very good book written by a Princeton-trained geologist who taught at NYU and Calvin College and son of famous OT scholar E. J. Young. He gives compelling evidence from the discipline of geology for an old earth. He also critically evaluates the arguments offered by young earth creationists and shows from his expertise that the YEC view is untenable with the evidence from rocks. Anyone who has read Whitcomb and Morris' "The Genesis Flood" needs to read this for a good counterbalance. Most helpfully Young helps readers navigate the differences between YEC "catastrophism" and uniformitarianism. Young argues for methodological uniformitarianism against substantive uniformitarianism.
February 10, 2025
YOUNG’S SECOND BOOK, CRITIQUING ‘YOUNG EARTH’ CREATIONISM
At the time this book was published in 1982, Davis Young was a professor of Geology at Calvin College; he has a BSE, MS, and PhD degrees in geology. (His father, Edward J. Young, was also a very respected Reformed Old Testament scholar.)
He wrote in the Preface, “Although I am opposing an idea that is common and on the surface sounds biblical, the reader must not draw the conclusion that I am opposing Christianity or attacking the Bible or even opposing the idea that the Flood was global in nature…. I simply believe that the young Earth view is unscientific and not necessarily biblical. I believe that continued promotion of such ideas will in the long run damage the credibility of Christianity and thus hinder our evangelistic and apologetic efforts. I regret the fact that in this book I must call those with whose views I disagree, ‘creationists,’ because I am a creationist, and I believe the biblical record of creation… I would like to say only that my understanding of creation as taught in Scripture differs from those whom I term ‘creationists.’”
He notes, “in order to make the argument favoring the origin of fossil graveyards by the Flood more cogent, one must also show that such fossil graveyards are not being formed today… The fact that a fossil requires rapid or catastrophic burial … however, by no means implies a global catastrophe. We may simply be talking of localized, brief catastrophes, and it must be stressed that such catastrophes ARE occurring at the present time.” (Pg. 75)
He continues, “One very important cause of mass mortality in the world today is the phenomenon of waterbloom… an excessive production of planktonic organisms in seawater… Excessive plankton can … be poisonous so that virtually all sea life in the vicinity is killed … All it takes to bury this great mass of animals is a sudden disturbance of sea floor sediment by a storm or an earthquake… Mass mortality by waterbloom is commonplace, and … the potential exists for forming great numbers of fossil graveyards…” (Pg. 76)
He goes on, "Mass mortalities in modern times have also been caused by changes in salinity of seawater or lakewater… Severe temperature changes have also been responsible for great catastrophic mortalities… Other mortalities have been caused by lack of oxygen or presence of noxious gases… Severe storms are also responsible for catastrophic kills… During hurricanes and other severe storms bottom sediment can be stirred up to a considerable depth and can easily bury animals.” (Pg. 77-78)
He notes, “some of the difficulties of current theories of the origin of evaporites in terms of uniformitarian principles... Whitcomb and Morris… suggested that evaporites were created during creation week and then redistributed during the Flood. Such a suggestion is not credible, however, since a highly turbulent flood would be likely to dissolve the most soluble evaporite salts … Also, if evaporites are being eroded by the Flood, chunks, boulders, pebbles, and cobbles of the material would be carried off… Why then do we not find cobbles or boulders of evaporites in... other clastic sedimentary deposits above AND below evaporite deposits?” (Pg. 86)
He points out, “It is not possible to conceive of large quiescent lakes slowly depositing their muds while the whole world is submerged under surging flood waters. It is not possible to conceive of great ice sheets scouring rocks and moving sediment if the whole world is submerged under surging flood water. It is not possible to conceive of a large desert with great sand dunes while the whole world is submerged under surging flood waters.” (Pg. 87) He adds, “One cannot develop a large desert or dunal area in a short time. A global flood that has submerged the entire world will not temporarily drain away to expose a large tract of land on which a desert will suddenly develop for a few days.” (Pg 91)
Of rates of radioactive decay, he explains, “Increased pressure seems to have no effect whatever on decay constants. The decay… remains the same when those elements are placed in different kinds of compounds…. It has been suggested by creationists that heightened cosmic ray incidence should speed up decay rates of radioactive materials, but even if this were true radiometric dating methods would generally be unaffected because cosmic rays do not penetrate very far into the ground… Thus available evidence indicates that decay constants are indeed constant and have been throughout earth history.” (Pg. 97)
He acknowledges, “One criticism of the K-Ar [Potassium-Argon] method made by a number of creationists is that the decay constant is uncertain and that a more exact determination of the decay constant is needed… but this fact is of absolutely no value to creationists. The need for a slightly more exact decay constant does not in the least discredit the K-Ar method… a 3.9% error in the age determination … sounds like a lot, but there is not a staggering difference between something 1000 million years old and something 1039 million years old.. [A] creationist made the point that argon can be lost from minerals by diffusion, thus rendering inaccurate ages. This is true, but … the result of argon loss, however, is that a mineral will give an anomalously young age.” (Pg. 99-100)
He adds, “It is, of course, possible that contamination may arise during crushing of samples for analysis in the laboratory or that tiny amounts of atmospheric argon may be trapped in the sample preparation and analytical equipment. Thus corrections are routinely made during analysis to eliminate the possible effects of atmospheric argon contamination.” (Pg. 101)
He continues, “Another way of checking on this matter is by sampling rocks from the moon, so that we need not worry about the problem of atmospheric contamination… It is therefore significant that K-Ar ages of lunar basalts are in the … [range of] 3 to 4 billion years and in general agreement with dates yielded by other methods… In no way does this support the young Earth view…” (Pg. 102)
He says of Thomas G. Barnes’ theory of magnetic field decay, “The problem with Barnes’ argument is that the Earth’s magnetic field probably is not generated by gradually dissipating electrical currents but by some sort of self-sustaining dynamo mechanism and therefore the dipole moment does not necessarily have to decrease continuously, but indeed can fluctuate considerably over a long period of time.” (Pg. 119-120) He adds, “Not only does the geographic position of the magnetic poles shift, so, too, does the polarity of the poles… The cause of these reversals is unknown, but it is very possible that the reversals are related to changes in strength of the magnetic dipole moment.” (Pg. 121)
He reports, “Creationist Stuart Nevins … sought to show that the oceans and the Earth cannot possibly be billions of years old… based on a study of sediment volumes in the ocean basins and the rates of erosion of sediment from land masses today… The fallacy in Nevins’ argument… is that sedimentary materials can be continuously recycled throughout geological time. We can erode all the sedimentary material we want from the continents at a specific rate for as long as we want, and the sedimentary contents of the ocean floors continuously increase PROVIDED that we return oceanic sediment to the continents at the same long term average rate as erosion is occurring.” (Pg. 129-130
He suggests, “The work by [R.V.] Gentry on pleochroic halos is indeed problematic for current theories of radiometric dating and decay constants of radioactive nuclides. But creationists should concentrate their energies in trying to solve such problems with the help of modern research rather than continuing to propagate the same fallacious arguments.” (Pg. 151)
He proposes, “We do not always understand how everything fits together because of our creatureliness and our sinfulness. Hence it may on occasion appear to us that the Bible and nature do not agree, but the disagreement is … between our understanding of the Bible and our understanding of nature… And so, as Christians, we should not be too dismayed if such conflicts seem to appear between nature and the Bible. They are not real conflicts between nature and the Bible, but only conflicts between natural science and theological exegesis.” (Pg. 154-155)
This book (and Young’s other books, such as ‘Creation and the Flood,' ‘The Biblical Flood,’ and ‘The Bible, Rocks and Time’ will be “must reading” for any Christians studying geology, and the age of the earth.
At the time this book was published in 1982, Davis Young was a professor of Geology at Calvin College; he has a BSE, MS, and PhD degrees in geology. (His father, Edward J. Young, was also a very respected Reformed Old Testament scholar.)
He wrote in the Preface, “Although I am opposing an idea that is common and on the surface sounds biblical, the reader must not draw the conclusion that I am opposing Christianity or attacking the Bible or even opposing the idea that the Flood was global in nature…. I simply believe that the young Earth view is unscientific and not necessarily biblical. I believe that continued promotion of such ideas will in the long run damage the credibility of Christianity and thus hinder our evangelistic and apologetic efforts. I regret the fact that in this book I must call those with whose views I disagree, ‘creationists,’ because I am a creationist, and I believe the biblical record of creation… I would like to say only that my understanding of creation as taught in Scripture differs from those whom I term ‘creationists.’”
He notes, “in order to make the argument favoring the origin of fossil graveyards by the Flood more cogent, one must also show that such fossil graveyards are not being formed today… The fact that a fossil requires rapid or catastrophic burial … however, by no means implies a global catastrophe. We may simply be talking of localized, brief catastrophes, and it must be stressed that such catastrophes ARE occurring at the present time.” (Pg. 75)
He continues, “One very important cause of mass mortality in the world today is the phenomenon of waterbloom… an excessive production of planktonic organisms in seawater… Excessive plankton can … be poisonous so that virtually all sea life in the vicinity is killed … All it takes to bury this great mass of animals is a sudden disturbance of sea floor sediment by a storm or an earthquake… Mass mortality by waterbloom is commonplace, and … the potential exists for forming great numbers of fossil graveyards…” (Pg. 76)
He goes on, "Mass mortalities in modern times have also been caused by changes in salinity of seawater or lakewater… Severe temperature changes have also been responsible for great catastrophic mortalities… Other mortalities have been caused by lack of oxygen or presence of noxious gases… Severe storms are also responsible for catastrophic kills… During hurricanes and other severe storms bottom sediment can be stirred up to a considerable depth and can easily bury animals.” (Pg. 77-78)
He notes, “some of the difficulties of current theories of the origin of evaporites in terms of uniformitarian principles... Whitcomb and Morris… suggested that evaporites were created during creation week and then redistributed during the Flood. Such a suggestion is not credible, however, since a highly turbulent flood would be likely to dissolve the most soluble evaporite salts … Also, if evaporites are being eroded by the Flood, chunks, boulders, pebbles, and cobbles of the material would be carried off… Why then do we not find cobbles or boulders of evaporites in... other clastic sedimentary deposits above AND below evaporite deposits?” (Pg. 86)
He points out, “It is not possible to conceive of large quiescent lakes slowly depositing their muds while the whole world is submerged under surging flood waters. It is not possible to conceive of great ice sheets scouring rocks and moving sediment if the whole world is submerged under surging flood water. It is not possible to conceive of a large desert with great sand dunes while the whole world is submerged under surging flood waters.” (Pg. 87) He adds, “One cannot develop a large desert or dunal area in a short time. A global flood that has submerged the entire world will not temporarily drain away to expose a large tract of land on which a desert will suddenly develop for a few days.” (Pg 91)
Of rates of radioactive decay, he explains, “Increased pressure seems to have no effect whatever on decay constants. The decay… remains the same when those elements are placed in different kinds of compounds…. It has been suggested by creationists that heightened cosmic ray incidence should speed up decay rates of radioactive materials, but even if this were true radiometric dating methods would generally be unaffected because cosmic rays do not penetrate very far into the ground… Thus available evidence indicates that decay constants are indeed constant and have been throughout earth history.” (Pg. 97)
He acknowledges, “One criticism of the K-Ar [Potassium-Argon] method made by a number of creationists is that the decay constant is uncertain and that a more exact determination of the decay constant is needed… but this fact is of absolutely no value to creationists. The need for a slightly more exact decay constant does not in the least discredit the K-Ar method… a 3.9% error in the age determination … sounds like a lot, but there is not a staggering difference between something 1000 million years old and something 1039 million years old.. [A] creationist made the point that argon can be lost from minerals by diffusion, thus rendering inaccurate ages. This is true, but … the result of argon loss, however, is that a mineral will give an anomalously young age.” (Pg. 99-100)
He adds, “It is, of course, possible that contamination may arise during crushing of samples for analysis in the laboratory or that tiny amounts of atmospheric argon may be trapped in the sample preparation and analytical equipment. Thus corrections are routinely made during analysis to eliminate the possible effects of atmospheric argon contamination.” (Pg. 101)
He continues, “Another way of checking on this matter is by sampling rocks from the moon, so that we need not worry about the problem of atmospheric contamination… It is therefore significant that K-Ar ages of lunar basalts are in the … [range of] 3 to 4 billion years and in general agreement with dates yielded by other methods… In no way does this support the young Earth view…” (Pg. 102)
He says of Thomas G. Barnes’ theory of magnetic field decay, “The problem with Barnes’ argument is that the Earth’s magnetic field probably is not generated by gradually dissipating electrical currents but by some sort of self-sustaining dynamo mechanism and therefore the dipole moment does not necessarily have to decrease continuously, but indeed can fluctuate considerably over a long period of time.” (Pg. 119-120) He adds, “Not only does the geographic position of the magnetic poles shift, so, too, does the polarity of the poles… The cause of these reversals is unknown, but it is very possible that the reversals are related to changes in strength of the magnetic dipole moment.” (Pg. 121)
He reports, “Creationist Stuart Nevins … sought to show that the oceans and the Earth cannot possibly be billions of years old… based on a study of sediment volumes in the ocean basins and the rates of erosion of sediment from land masses today… The fallacy in Nevins’ argument… is that sedimentary materials can be continuously recycled throughout geological time. We can erode all the sedimentary material we want from the continents at a specific rate for as long as we want, and the sedimentary contents of the ocean floors continuously increase PROVIDED that we return oceanic sediment to the continents at the same long term average rate as erosion is occurring.” (Pg. 129-130
He suggests, “The work by [R.V.] Gentry on pleochroic halos is indeed problematic for current theories of radiometric dating and decay constants of radioactive nuclides. But creationists should concentrate their energies in trying to solve such problems with the help of modern research rather than continuing to propagate the same fallacious arguments.” (Pg. 151)
He proposes, “We do not always understand how everything fits together because of our creatureliness and our sinfulness. Hence it may on occasion appear to us that the Bible and nature do not agree, but the disagreement is … between our understanding of the Bible and our understanding of nature… And so, as Christians, we should not be too dismayed if such conflicts seem to appear between nature and the Bible. They are not real conflicts between nature and the Bible, but only conflicts between natural science and theological exegesis.” (Pg. 154-155)
This book (and Young’s other books, such as ‘Creation and the Flood,' ‘The Biblical Flood,’ and ‘The Bible, Rocks and Time’ will be “must reading” for any Christians studying geology, and the age of the earth.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews