Old Earth Creationism on Trial: The Verdict Is In

by Tim Chaffey, Jason Lisle

Twenty-somethings once faithfully attended church. What made them stop? While most said they still believe that the Bible is God's Word, they also said that the idea that the earth is millions of years old was one thing that caused them to doubt the Bible? The crumbling foundation of the church takes a devastating toll on future generations. Therefore, churches must reclaim the historical truth found in Genesis and apply the Bible's authority to every area of life. -Ken Ham, president, Answers in Genesis

As the modern church struggles to find a place of relevancy for a new generation that already has massive demands on its time and attention, more and more young people raised in the church are leaving it-failing to find the answers to their questions of faith and life, beset with doubts raised by issues that the church chooses not to address. Opting to skirt the controversy of Genesis as literal history, the biblical authority of the Holy Word is called into question and reduced to a collection of mere stories. More popularly considered an issue for schools or in the public realm, the conflicting views on the age of the earth also remain a pivotal issue within the church-as it has for over two centuries.

Was the Creation week literally six days?Does science really point to an old earth?Does the issue really matter for Christians?Should this issue even be discussed within the church?Join authors Dr. Jason Lisle and Tim Chaffey as they put forth a case against an old-earth interpretation of Scripture. A comprehensive biblical, theological, and scientific critique of old-earth creationism, the book presents its compelling testimony in layman's terms to create a powerful debate that leads to unquestionable truth.

Genres: Science, Christian, Theology, Faith, Nonfiction, Spirituality, Audiobook

240 pages, Paperback

Published June 30, 2008

Reviews

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was quite good. It contains a good review and summary of the basic arguments of an old-earth understanding of Scripture, along with a refutation of those arguments.

[Chase Dunn · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book will be undermined and ridiculed by the so-called “scientific” community of naturalist evolutionists and old earth advocates alike. Why? The authors of the book do one thing that the other groups will not do — admit their ultimate authority or presuppositions. That’s it! Chaffey and Lisle readily admit that the inspired Word of God holds the place of authority and therefore determines the lens through which evidence is interpreted.

Reviewers of this book ridicule that they cannot hold to a science that is dependent on the Bible, but they do the same thing! EVERYONE has an ultimate authority and worldview by which they interpret scientific evidence, which the authors rightly state does not interpret itself, but must be interpreted. Interpret the evidences wrong and a wrong conclusion is the outcome. Perhaps a logically consistently conclusion in that A + B = C, but one that although logically consistently, is wrong in reality.

Not only was this book great to brush up on the evidences for young earth creationism and the weak points in opposing views, but the honesty of the authors is refreshing. As believers, we should never allow ourselves to put on our heels by “academics” who claim our adherence to the Bible is blind faith. Rather, we should point out the fly in their ointment; namely, they have an ultimate standard and worldview that either precludes a Creator or adopts worldly scientific claims a priori dismissing the supernatural or plain meaning of Genesis 1-12.

[Ezechel · Rating 2 out of 5]

I am not sure why I've listened to this audiobook. Maybe because it was included in my Audible Plus subscription and I thought it was a good opportunity to review a certain worldview (young earth creationism) I walked away from more than a decade ago. Maybe I was giving the book a chance to show me where I strayed away from truth and bring me back to the fold. It didn't work. Actually, quite the opposite, I'm even more against YEC after reading this. Maybe someone can recommend a better book?

I took many notes, and I could break it piece by piece where they go wrong in their biblical textual analysis and where they make a joke of the science. But I think I'll just skip all of that and just mention a few major takeaways, in part because I have many friends who are in the YEC camp and I have no intention to start an argument on the details, I respect their opinion and their friendship, and I don't think it's worth fighting over this as brothers and sisters in Christ.

So keeping things general, here's what it boils down to: science and the scientists are often misrepresented, and I'm not sure if it's because they misunderstand the issues, or worse they misrepresent it on purpose. In any case, when I see all these battles they take on a straw man I have no choice but to ignore them. In other words, as far a scientific arguments are concerned they were totally unconvincing for me.

Perhaps they do better on biblical interpretation? There might be a valid theological point to be made in favor of young earth creation, but if there is you won't know it from here, because the authors are trying too hard, and in their zeal this book becomes dishonest and undermines its authority: they switch hermeneutics methods back and forth according to what works for their view and what doesn't. And I'll leave it at that.

In the end they admit that trying to convince a non-believer in the Bible that the earth is young is futile. In other words, they indirectly accept the possibility for 2 distinct and competing "sciences", one for the believer and one for the non-believer. Yep. They recommend not even having a debate with someone who says "let's just talk about science, and not appeal to the Bible for now". Imagine that, a complete wedge of separation.

Actually all I needed to know about this book can be contained in this single quote: "Without the Bible, a person cannot properly interpret the scientific evidence". There you go. All the science ever produced without the Bible is invalid. Regardless of how much it's proven in practice.

Sorry, but I am not able to affirm that.

[Tilak Sinha-Gröger · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book falls upon its self perceived strong point: Biblical hermeneutics.

I have given three stars as I genuinely found the philosophical questioning of epistemology, as well as the pointing out of epistemologically unaware reasoning from opponents, to be consistent and, at least for a popular level, intelligently demonstrated.

Where it falls weak is that though the book keeps mentioning "what the Bible teaches," that same level of methodological awareness when it came to scientific data went out the window, and just standard fundamentalist assumptions and techniques were used, butchering Biblical passages as well as contemporary science.

Nevertheless, the book is structured and communicated clearly, and is a nice introduction to anyone wanting to understand the Young Earth Creationist perspective better.

[Daniel · Rating 1 out of 5]

Disclaimer: I only read a quarter of the book. It started by saying it would do its best to represent the opposing view fairly, then proceeds in several arguments to misrepresent the opposing party. A couple of examples: Poorly nuanced overview of the history of Jewish and Christian commentators on Genesis, as if virtually all had the same literal interpretation of Gen 1. Also says that some don't agree that the exact timeline of Gen 1 is an important aspect of the text, then proceeds with, "if this view is correct, then why did the Holy Spirit inspire Moses to include the words of Genesis 1:2-25?". Just no.

I agree with a lot of the conclusions in this book, and with the majority of views and focuses held by its authors. But I strongly disagree with the way they get there. In many ways a study in argumentative fallacies. At least the first 25% of the book.

[Brandon H. · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have vacillated between two views of the origins debate throughout my life. I started out holding to the Young Earth Creationism (YEC) view but in the last decade leaned toward the Old Earth Creationism (OEC) view. As a Christian, any view that denies the existence of God or His involvement in the origins of the earth and the universe obviously isn't an option for me.

This book stays true to its title. It is a prosecution of Old Earth Creationism. It covers some of the topics one would expect to read in this subject matter, like the flood, the Big Bang, gaps in the Genesis genealogies, etc. While the authors did defend some common criticisms of their position, most of the book was aimed at picking apart the foundations of OEC. They mostly targeted Hugh Ross but also challenged a handful of other popular, Christian authors and theologians, including some I highly respect. Besides their arguments, I liked that the authors were more generous to their critics than many of their critics have been to them. I respect that.

I would give the book a solid four stars.

[Mark McElreath · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent work that lays out numerous Old Earth positions and exposes them to the light of Scripture. Chaffey and Lisle are balanced and gracious in their indictments while not letting up where man's understanding comes short of the teaching of the Word of God. This should be read by anyone working with college students, "intellectuals", or those with questions about the teachings they are being inundated by from many Christian authors and teachers of the day.

[Steven H · Rating 1 out of 5]

TWO SCIENTIFIC APOLOGISTS PROVIDE AN "UP-TO-DATE DEFENSE OF THE YOUNG EARTH VIEW"

Tim Chaffey is an apologist who is the content manager for the "Ark Encounter". Jason Lisle is an astrophysicist with Answers in Genesis.

They wrote in the Preface to this 2008 book, "This book is unique in that it provides a thorough biblical, theological, and scientific critique of old-earth creationism while maintaining its readability... Although scientific evidence certainly bears weight in the debate between the two camps, this work focuses mainly on biblical and theological arguments. After all, from a Christian perspective, if one side cannot support its view from Scripture, then it cannot be the proper view. Nonetheless, it is important to show that good science does support the biblical time scale... It is our hope that this book will serve to clarify the debate by giving an up-to-date defense of the young-earth view and by exposing the many fallacious arguments used in defense of the old-earth views... The primary goal of this work is to call the Church back to the authority of Scripture rather than trusting our own methods and ideas ..."

They state in the Introduction, "A bias is not always a bad thing. A correct worldview (or bias) will enhance our ability to correctly interpret evidence (just as an incorrect one will hamper our ability). This is why it is so important to base our thinking on God's infallible Word. Every person has a worldview and will inevitably interpret data through that filter whether they realize it or not. Therefore, it is very important to make sure we have the RIGHT worldview: that we start with correct, biblical assumptions when we approach science..." (Pg. 21-22)

Of the interpretation that Hebrews 4:3-5 suggests that God is still in his Sabbath rest from creation, they argue, "First, notice that the text does not say that the seventh day of the creation week is continuing to the present day. It merely reveals that God entered His rest on the seventh day... Imagine that a vacationing person said on Monday that he rested on Friday. It would not be reasonable to suggest that, since he was still resting on Monday, therefore it was still Friday." (Pg. 51)

On the question as to whether Job 41:19 suggests that Leviathan could breathe fire, they suggest, "Most young-earth creationists have no trouble believing that some kind of dinosaur or similar creature could have breathed fire. Since all we have are the bones of these creatures, it is impossible to rule out this prospect. But several living creatures strongly suggest that this is not a far-fetched idea: some eels produce electricity. Fireflies produce light and bombardier beetles produce an explosive, noxious gas heated to the boiling temperature of water..." (Pg. 64-65)

They explain, "All young-earthers believe that light was created on the first day, as Genesis says. We differ from old-earthers in that we do not believe this light came from the sun. We believe the sun was not created until the fourth day, precisely as the text states (Gen 1:16). Young-earthers have consistently made their position clear and have even offered plausible explanations as to what the light on the first three days may have been: `Where did the light come from? We are not told, but Genesis 1:3 certainly indicates it was a created light to provide day and night until God made the sun on Day 4 to rule the day He had made.' [Ken Ham, 'The New Answers Book']" (Pg. 67)

Later, they elaborate, "The sun is not necessary for day and night---only a directional light source is needed. The Bible is clear that light was in existence since the first day... Revelation 21:22-22:5... states that in the New Jerusalem there will be no need of the sun because God's glory will illuminate it. This is a possibility as to where the light came from for the days in question. Another possibility is that God may have used a temporary light source. However, since the Bible does not tell us, we should be cautious and not dogmatic with our speculations." (Pg. 174)

They point out, "The secular scientist reasons that if radioactive material decays slowly today, then it must ALWAYS have decayed slowly. However, we should not arbitrarily assume that such rates have not changed with time. In fact, scientists have been able to speed up certain kinds of radioactive decay by as much as a billion times!... Moreover, God could have accelerated rates of radioactive decay in the past using supernatural means not available to us. Although God would not arbitrarily change such rates, we know that God has acted in a supernatural way in the past in order to accomplish his will... Therefore, we cannot assume that radioactive decay happened during the creation week at the same rate it happens today." (Pg. 134-135)

Of the Distant Starlight issue, they note, "we must recognize that creationists and evolutionists agree on SOME of the assumptions involving distant starlight. We agree that the galaxies really are far away because the techniques that allow us to measure such distances are logically sound, repeatable methods... Furthermore, most creationists agree that the light from the stars was not created `already on its way.' The reason for this is that we see things happen in space; stars explode, pulsate, and so on. If we are merely observing light that was created in transit, then none of these things have actually occurred." (Pg. 140-141)

They contend, "The distant starlight argument ... supposes that the light arrived on earth entirely according to today's laws of nature. Is this reasonable? A Christian should not assume that this must be so... The laws of nature are not adequate to describe how God created the universe... A consistent Christian must be open to the possibility that the mechanism God used to get the starlight during the creation week cannot be understood in terms of today's `laws of nature.' This thought may be disappointing to science-minded individuals because we want to know everything. And, of course, it is also possible that God did use `natural' means to get the starlight here. The point is that a Christian should not assume that this must be the case." (Pg. 142)

They assert, "Since the Bible undisputedly teaches a young earth, when someone claims that scientific evidence proves otherwise, we can be certain that they are mistaken. We have seen that faulty assumptions are responsible for inflated age estimates... Every `scientific' old-earth argument we have come across involves either incorrect starting assumptions or logical fallacies." (Pg. 153)

They state, "In all, there are ten generations totaling 1,556 years as Noah's 500th year. If the open view proponent could demonstrate a gap in these genealogies, it would greatly improve his argument, but he cannot. Jude 14 tells us that Enoch was the seventh from Adam... By adding up the years, we discover that Methuselah died the same year the Flood started. This biblical evidence excludes any possibility of inserting gaps into the Genesis 5 genealogies... Even if one could be verified, it does not advance the old-earth position since it would only add a few decades or perhaps centuries, but not millions of years." (Pg. 183)

This book is a frank, up-to-date, and clearly written presentation of the young-earth position, and a critique of many old-earth positions. Whether or not one agrees with it, it will be of great interest to Christians studying these questions.

[Michael Powers · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic book that biblically, logically and scientifically shows how old earth creationism or theistic evolution is a false belief. Those who believe in billions of years or that God used the process of evolution to bring about all life on earth do not get that belief from scripture, but rather from man's ideas.

I think a ton of biblical gymnastics would have to be done to make the first chapter of genesis mean anything else but an ordinary 24 hour day. I speak on this topic here in the US and in other countries and I have found that most people who question this plain reading of Genesis chapter one, do so, not because of what scripture says, but because of what they have been told science says. If "science" says that the earth is billions of years old, then we have to somehow change what the Word of God says to fit man's ideas.

When it comes to Genesis chapter one, the debate is about how the hebrew word for day should be interpreted. The word is "yom".

We can determine how yom should be interpreted in Genesis 1:5-2:2 simply by examining the context in which we find the word and then comparing its context with how we see its usage elsewhere in Scripture.

By doing this we let Scripture interpret itself. The Hebrew word yom is used 2301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1, yom plus a number (used 410 times) always indicates an ordinary day, i.e., a 24-hour period. The words “evening” and “morning” together (38 times) always indicate an ordinary day. Yom + “evening” or “morning” (23 times) always indicates an ordinary day. Yom + “night” (52 times) always indicates an ordinary day.

When you look at Genesis chapter one, all those things are used together to show us that it was a 24 hour day. I don't know God could have made it any plainer.

Also, I have never come across anyone who questions what the hebrew word "yom" means outside of Genesis chapter 1. No one ever questions if the Israelites marched around Jericho for 7 days or 7 million years, etc. They only question it in Genesis....

But for the sake of argument, let's say that Genesis is poetic language and not historical narrative. I totally disagree with those who say it is poetic... but let's just say it is.

What do you do about this passage in Exodus? Exodus 20:11 states: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” This, of course, is the basis for our seven-day week—six days of work and one day of rest. Obviously, this passage was meant to be taken as speaking of a total of seven literal days based on the Creation Week of six literal days of work and one literal day of rest.

I have never found anyone who would say that this passage in Exodus is anything but historical narrative. But here God reiterates that he created in six literal days. In fact this particular passage was written in stone by the very finger of God.

If God wanted to tell us that he created in six time periods, etc. he would have used the word "olam" which means a long period of time.

I would also point to what Jesus said in Mark 10:6:

“But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’” Here we see that Jesus clearly taught that the creation was young, for Adam and Eve existed “from the beginning,” not billions of years after the universe and earth came into existence.

Those who believe in molecules to man evolution believe that humans came into existence at the very end of creation. If the evolutionary world view of time was put into a calendar, the big bang would be on January 1 at midnight and mankind wouldn't appear until December 31 at 11:59pm.

Jesus made a very similar statement in Mark 13:19 indicating that man’s sufferings started very near the beginning of creation.

The phrases: “from the foundation of the world” and “from the blood of Abel” in Luke 11:50–51 also indicate that Jesus placed Abel very close to the beginning of creation, not billions of years after the beginning.

I am very passionate about this issue in large part because I have worked in youth ministry for 36 years and I can't tell you how many teens I have come across who start to question the bible because they are taught that it really doesn't say what it seems to be saying. Teens pick up on that very quickly. What shocks me now is that even the majority of so called Christian colleges are teaching the following:

The days in Genesis are not literal days. The flood was not global, but local. Adam and Eve were not real people but were metaphors. That God used evolution for billions of years and when an ape man and an ape woman evolved God put a spirit in them and they became Adam and Eve. (Which throws out the whole doctrine of marriage and the one flesh principal)

They are also taught that when Paul spoke of Adam as being a real person that Paul was an ignorant person and didn't know what we know now about science.

And when Jesus spoke about Adam being a real person that he was only telling the people of that time something that they could handle. (In other words Jesus lied to them.)

This infuriates me.... Teens will say, "So if I can't trust what the bible says plainly about creating in six days... and I can't trust that the flood was global... and I can't trust that Adam and Eve were real people... etc. Than where does truth start in the bible?

Even a number of churches are teaching these same things. Teens then learn that they go to school or watch nature shows on Discovery channel to get real facts, but that they go to church to hear "stories" that aren't necessarily true but have a good moral lesson to them. And churches wonder why they are losing the youth at earlier and earlier ages. And they wonder why there is no power behind their preaching!

We teach our youth ministry students that they can trust the bible from the very first verse and that the scientific evidence always matches up to what the Word of God says.

Here is the last video of an 8 session seminar that I do on the topic of Creation Evolution if any of you are interested in watching it and learning more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FVl-...

[Angie Libert · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this book based on the recommendation of Natasha Crain's blog. The author basically said the same thing over and over, while making snide remarks about how "consistent Christians" should see things, which made for a boring read. However, I understand the arguments of Young Earth Creationist better and appreciated the author's definitions of operational and origins science, plus naturalism and uniformitarianism, all of which should aid me in my further understanding of this topic.

[BayouCat (erica) · Rating 1 out of 5]

There were many times the authors contradicted themselves, swinging between emphasizing the requirement to take the Bible literally, accepting what is said and not assuming what it could mean in any way and their personal opinions on what God would and wouldn’t do.

[Frank Peters · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was highly repetitive and to me seemed haughty. The argument in the book can be summarised as follows: 1) The bible is the word of God and is therefore always right, 2) Our interpretation of the bible is correct, 3) Thus, we know that the earth and the universe are about 6000 years old, 4) If anyone contradicts or disagrees with us (i.e., our interpretation), they are wrong.

There were a few good parts from the book. First, the authors clearly explained their philosophical methodology regarding science and origins, which is basically that (their interpretation of) the bible takes precedence over any other argument. Therefore, since the universe is 6000 (ish) years old, any (supposed) evidence to the contrary has to be wrongly interpreted. Secondly, it was nice to see a small softening in the young earth creationist rhetoric, in that they no longer claim that those who disagree are heretical, and no longer claim that agreeing with their view on origins is a salvation issue. Finally, they did a good job arguing those theological areas where their young earth interpretation is strongest.

Unfortunately, the book had weak points as well. After constantly complaining about how those who disagree misrepresent them, and use strawman arguments against them, the authors nominally did the same against those (like me) who do not agree with their viewpoints. Too many of the arguments against any old earth view were based on weak old earth views, and thus they were able to make a strong argument against; strong enough that they would have made me seriously re-examine my view, had I held the view they disagreed with. But unfortunately, the stronger old earth arguments were glossed over very quickly (swept under the rug) in the appendices of the book (if mentioned at all), and thus never dealt with. To give a concrete example, after making the theological case that the days in Genesis 1 represent 24-hour days, they chose not to deal with the many (at very least three) old earth views that accept 24-hour days. They also completely ignore some weak parts of their view, like who was Cain’s wife while glossing over other weak points. One that stood out was the first two verses in Genesis 1, which they presume have to be part of the first day of creation not based on that passage, but rather based on a passage in Exodus.

When the authors discussed the scientific arguments, the book got worse. All evidence was rejected out of hand based on the main argument of the book. The authors touched on how we can see stars that are millions and billions of lights years away, but they didn’t seem embarrassed by their lack of answer. They also horribly misrepresented the big bang, by claiming that this was based on an atheistic world view. The history of the big bang is the opposite. The atheist world view presumed that the universe had to be eternal, and it was a Christian who proposed the big bang. Then it was an atheist who mocked this theory by calling it the big bang and then spent decades trying to disprove it, since it implies God as the creator. It is only young earth creationists and some atheist that reject the big bang. As a result, their treatment of this topic seemed dishonest to me.

Ultimately, I found the book depressing and far too repetitive (the bible is always correct, our biblical interpretation is right, so everyone who disagrees with us is wrong). That being said, this is an excellent book to support those who want to accept the young earth position. It is also an excellent book for those who cannot understand how a thinking person is able to accept such a position. But for those who have thought through the topic and do not already agree with the authors, the book will likely be irritating.

[Josiah Richardson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Jason Lisle has long been my favorite YEC because, although I disagree with him, his graciousness and humility is to be as admired as his OEC counterpart, Hugh Ross. So, to my surprise, there were times that as I was reading this book I would come across harsh and mean words about those who do not hold the YEC position. Granted, this may have been the other author (Tim Chaffey), but it was not delineated as to who wrote what. In any case, I do not hold to either YEC or OEC, and so I was simply watching from the cheap seats. But there were things I saw from up there that may help add some context and needed amendations to the YEC position. My educational background falls in both science and theology, so I'd like to think that I have a somewhat helpful perspective to offer. Many wouldn't think so and sometimes I agree with them. In any event, one thing that pulled me out of the YEC camp was the incessant name-calling, heresy hunting, and legalistic system that seems to go along with it. There are exceptions, to be sure, as there are several men and women who come immediately to mind that do not fit that mold. Lisle was one of those. I am unwilling to go further than Scriptures do in determining what is required for salvation and what is not. The age of the earth is simply not one of those things. Now, we way be able to make the case that one side or the other is shifting liberally, or is stunting their Christian growth on poor spiritual meat. That much can be said of any position when you get down to the brass tacks. Theologically, I find both YEC and OEC wanting. I've written out a few reasons why on my blog in years past. Additionally, I find both positions lacking in terms of science. YEC underestimates God and OEC underestimates nature.

I'm this particular work, Lisle and Chaffey take aim at OEC's. They seem to be the ones that most YEC's defer to if they ever leave their position and so it makes sense that they are seen as the greater threat. In my experience, however, most leave YEC for darwinism and secular humanism as a result of having to choose between God and science. I'm admittedly painting with a broad brush here - but it is a Goodreads review and I try to keep these below a certain word count. I think Lisle and Chaffey are correct in their arguments in the sense that what OEC is trying to do is to have their cake and eat it too. For instance, many OEC folk see some compelling scientific data or what-have-you, and affirm so long as it goes along with showing the earth is old and nothing more than that. But there is more than that. Most data that supports an old earth also supports evolutionary processes and vice versa. So, why the straining of the gnat? Why not jump all in? That's a good point. I could say the same to this who hold the YEC position, but this about what they wrote - not what they didn't .

The TL;DR is this: Lisle and Chaffey make some good points about OEC and it's derivatives. At the same time, many of the arguments they made also apply to themselves. They make several harsh statements that would preclude an OEC Christian from being welcomed as part of the Christian church. Additionally, several of the arguments (especially those on ANE literature and history) are without support in the scholarship.

[Nathan · Rating 2 out of 5]

My basic though on this book is that the judges were bias, so the verdict must be called into question. I had higher hopes for this book. The authors appointed themselves as both prosecuting attorneys and as judges. In choosing a trial format, they probably would have been better served by a trial by jury.

I would probably score the authors about 80% on the evidence and exegesis provided. They generally made good points and presented them with clarity, consistency, and cogency. On the whole, I think they made a creditable Scriptural case for a young-earth creationism. It wasn't a home run, but they deserve to be in the game.

My main issue with the book is the authors' confidence that they have indisputably won every engagement. They seem to believe that disagreement with young-earth creationism is always the result of compromise and unbelief. Unfortunately, their handling of Scripture left too much to be desired for me to find it persuasive. The repeated conflation of 2 Peter 3:4 with scientific uniformitarianism was a point lost. As was their use of Romans 3:23 to demonstrate that "all means all" (the grammar and context of Romans 3:22-24 leads me to a more delimited understanding of "all" in v. 23). There were quite a few other logical and exegetical arguments that simply did not land for me.

The book is a mixed bag for me. The authors would have been well served to make more modest claims and show greater charity to their old-earth brothers. It ended up being a turn-off.

[Jay Brand · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chaffee and Lisle should be commended for their unswerving faith on God's Word as the final authority on the origin of this earth and the various forms of life on it. Much has been lost in the secular world as well as in the church due to skepticism regarding a Biblical view of origins. However, whether or not belief in the Bible requires acceptance of a young earth and that God created the entire universe on the 4th day of creation of this earth and its atmosphere (or perhaps the solar system) may reach beyond what the Bible affirms.

As I have illustrated in a book manuscript (not yet published), 'A Personal Journey from Science to Faith', to claim the Bible reaches conclusions that it doesn't, inadvertently lays the foundation for skepticism, when definitive, irrefutable evidence relevant to that issue becomes available. For example, Darwin's demonstration of obvious change among the beaks of finches along the Galapagos archipelago refuted not the Judeo-Christian Scriptures but the Medieval church's teaching of 'fixity of species', an amalgamation between Greco-Roman philosophy and the Bible. Due to a common acceptance that the church's teaching was based on Scripture, many scientists and other scholars began to doubt the validity of the Bible in the wake of Darwin's observations - an erroneous rejection of claims falsely attributed to the Bible.

[Allison · Rating 2 out of 5]

I am not a young earther. Still not after reading all the “convincing” arguments in this book. Essentially every argument just falls back into how Genesis 1 is interpreted. The young earth community interprets that chapter of the Bible in such a way that then guides all their interpretation of science and gives them books like this to write. A slightly different interpretation leads one elsewhere. My biggest issue with the book is the patronizing voice of the authors. The use of “obviously” when talking about their conclusions, the claims of being “saddened” by those who believe in an old earth thinking they understand the Bible, the general tone overall- these things make for uncomfortable reading! These authors seem very devoted to their work and their beliefs and for that I commend them. But they just did not fulfill the purpose they set out to fulfill: the case is not closed and the verdict is not in.

[Jackson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent review of the Old-Earth Creation position and its Biblical and scientific flaws. A few quality quotes:

"If naturalism were true, it would be impossible to prove anything. Proofs involves use of the laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction... The laws of logic are not part of nature. They are not a part of the physical universe. You can't stub your toe on a law of logic. So if nature (the physical universe) is all that exists, and if laws of logic are not part of nature, then they can't exist. But they are required for rational reasoning. So, the naturalist view is actually self-refuting."

"No argument that goes against God's Word can possibly be sound. Since the Bible undisputedly teaches a young earth, when someone claims that scientific evidence proves otherwise, we can be certain they are mistaken."

[Valerie L. Robertson · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent read. I think it better represents the opposition better than most texts of its kind, and I believe the authors make a compelling argument of their own. The most important aspect is the authors admit their sole source of authority and refuse to make bad-faith arguments based on faulty initial assumptions.

I would say, this is a book developed to inform believers or those who are more than a little curious about Christianity. The primary arguments are argued based on theology, and an atheist will not find Scripture to be an authoritative source. The supporting evidence is based on logical form, and reveals the philosophical biases that serve as lenses for interpreting scientific data.

Very well written.

[Jocelyn Myers · Rating 2 out of 5]

I picked this book as “light reading” after a series of books that challenged my worldviews and beliefs. Sometimes, I need a break from being challenged and it’s nice to have some support for my beliefs. With that in mind, please understand how difficult it was to rate this two stars. However, the amount of misinformation and logical fallacies present in this book, all while the author rails against others committing these acts made it nearly impossible to even finish this book. And I agree with the main premise! Arguments like the ones presented in this book are the reason why the secular world views Christians as uneducated Bible thumping bumpkins. This book was disheartening to say the least.

[Joel Hammett · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am constantly amazed at the Bible.

The Bible stands every test that science throws at it, and not only withstands, but progresses and is established. If you want your faith to be strengthened, read this book.

I greatly appreciated the balanced approach these authors took. Often, scientists can be pretentious and contentious, but this was not the case for Dr. Lisle and his coauthor.

I have never doubted young earth creationism because this is what the Bible says, so it must be true. However, the presence of legitimate scientific evidence for this view only grew my faith in the Bible.

I wholeheartedly enjoyed the logical and accessible nature of this book. It was not packed with jargon and technical language, but it was precise and specific (a challenge for any writer).

[Danny Barulli · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm an old-earth creationist. I must say that the book is very convincing and persuasive, ... almost. Chaffey and Lisle make a very strong argument, emphasizing the priority we must have toward Scripture.

Two critiques that I have, failed to address the chronology of creation of Adam before plant live (2:7-8) and treated Psalm 104 much to lightly just because it is poetry while emphasizing Is 65:25 and the future (and past) capability of carnivores eating vegetation.

As a general critique against young earth creationist scientists, I wish they would focus much more effort on demonstrating from nature that the universe and the earth are as young as they claim.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is not apologetics, per se. The arguments here are not creation vs. evolution, but old vs. young Earth creation. Just what I was looking for, but an important distinction if you weren't expecting it.

It is a very good overview of the arguments against old Earth creationism. The author is fair, and often quotes the arguments of his opponents to avoid straw men. He emphasizes the importance of respectful discussions, but at times his tone comes across as a bit snarky. It doesn't invalidate his points, but I found it a bit distracting when it happened.

[Richard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clear, concise writing that refutes old-earth creationism viewpoints one by one without resorting to straw man arguments. This text deals mostly with refuting Biblical claims for and against creationism and does not delve too deeply into secular scientific arguments. There are some refutations of old-earth theories like carbon dating but this book does not go into technical details. This book is for laymen and is a good source to refute Bibilical arguments.

[Arne Erickson · Rating 5 out of 5]

A excellent examination of the theological and hermeneutical case for take God at his word. This book not only throughly explores the evidence for a 6000 year old earth, but also teaches logic, critical thinking, and proper principles of Biblical exegesis. Both sides of the debate have their best arguments put forward and examined in an entertaining and sequential examination. Jason Lisle is PHD astronomer but also very good at applying principles of logic to Biblical issues.

[Virginia · Rating 5 out of 5]

A thorough review of the debate of young-earth creationism versus old-earth creationism. This book affirms the Bible as the ultimate authority. The authors assert that the debate of young earth vs old earth creationism is ultimately an issue of whether or not a person can trust the word of God from the very first verse and acknowledges that both sides use their worldview to support their argument.

The authors present the arguments of each side in the form of a court trial. They do so in a way that makes the arguments understandable to the average reader. It is a great introduction to the topic.

I would recommend this book for middle school or high school students or adults who would like a better understanding of this popular debate.

[Calvin Coulter · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great introduction to the issues involved in the creation versus evolution debate. Any believer in the biblical record as a trustworthy guide to what we see around us in creation will be strengthened by what they read here in their faith in the word of God, and in their stand against the slide toward compromise.

[Daniel Shaver · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tons of good arguments in support of a young earth Creationism. I'd recommend this book to Christians who would like to learn about this topic in detail. My biggest complaint about the book is the author's claim that all science should be interpreted through the Bible. Thankfully, they still cover some scientific arguments for and against old earth creationism.

[Chris Whisonant · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good and quick overview of the Biblical young-earth model and how it is not in line with the models of old-earth creationists (or other secular models). Easy read for anyone who may be new to getting into this subject.

[Lindsay · Rating 3 out of 5]

I skimmed this. The book is super deep and I just wanted an overview.

[Tim · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is primarily a Biblical refutation of Old-earth Creationism. It does at times make scientific criticism as well. I believe the author did a very good job in making his case.