Old-Earth Creationism on Trial: The Verdict is In, by Dr. Jason Lisle and Tim Chaffey
In about 200 pages (including footnotes and appendices), the authors present a case to Bible-affirming Christians for young earth creationism. They follow the rules of logic and point out some commonly applied logical fallacies which they are avoiding. Topics range from biblical interpretation of Genesis’ creation and flood accounts, descriptions and simple refutations of alternate interpretations (day-age theory, gaps in genealogies, local flood), to a short discussion of the scientific evidence “for” and against an old earth.
The authors, Dr. Jason Lisle and Tim Chaffey, emphasize the importance of using the Bible as our foundation for science. Because of this commitment they are able to present a consistent cosmogony and worldview, but they are not in this book writing to skeptics or people of other religions. Though Old-Earth Creationism on Trial argues that a biblical foundation is the only scientific starting point that is not self-defeating, and therefore the best approach to combating erroneous theories, their objective in this book is to encourage and challenge Christians.
Through a short examination of history, the authors prove that young-earth creationism is not a reaction to biological evolution, but that it has been the majority interpretation of the church (and plainest reading of Genesis) for thousands of years before Darwin wrote Origin of Species. In fact, a portion of the church had begun to compromise on the age of the earth earlier in the 19th century. Thus the debate inside the church has been going on for about 200 years.
One of my favorite parts of this easy-to-read reference book was the use of Proverbs 26:4-5, which says: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.” Therefore, to be consistent in our own position, we do not have to grant the false assumptions of our opponents in order to debate them. However, it is a valid debate technique to point out the fallacy of their assumptions by showing their logical conclusions (which can be proven to be false). This is the format, in fact, of the whole book.
Compared to Coming to Grips with Genesis, Old-Earth Creationism on Trial covers most of the same information in a more concise and layman-friendly format. The authors also do a good job of focusing on the age of the earth (and universe) question, without going too far into the associated questions of biological evolution. Christians are discouraged from accepting naturalism and uniformitarianism, even in conjunction with other biblical beliefs. The book is a strong polemic against these two philosophies, which both underlie the theories of evolution.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
Lisa of Longbourn 
From an encyclopedia: “Modern geologists and geophysicists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years. This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.”
What does the Bible say about radiometric age dating?
Nothing. The people who wrote the Bible were scientifically illiterate. They lived in ancient times so they had a good excuse for their ignorance. What’s your excuse?
Bob,
I like to encourage comments on my blog, but admit you caused a deep sigh and reluctance with your recent question.
Your encyclopedia was written by a secular old-earth proponent. I do not deny that many, even a majority of modern geologists and geophysicists consider the age of the Earth to be 4.5 billion years. (At least that’s what they think right now. They keep making it older. Maybe they’ll feel obligated to keep this birthdate now since it’s been published in your revered encyclopedia, but I doubt it.)
The Bible does not say the word “radiometric,” but does refer to the age of the earth. It also addresses scientific issues and presents us with the philosophical foundations for science (the expectation that the universe runs in an observable, repeatable, orderly way and that our brains are able to make these conclusions and reason “laws” of the universe). What the Bible does say about the history of the world gives clues for scientists about alternate explanations of the data commonly interpreted as resulting from an earth billions of years old. The world-wide flood of Noah cannot help but have caused geological sedimentary layers, fossils, and even some more dramatic features like canyons.
In the realm of physics, specifically radiometric dating, these methods are not testable – except as they are or are not consistent with other dating methods. When you compare different radiometric methods on the same object, it has been shown that the dates can be different. Many radiometric methods cannot provide a date lower than millions of years because of the half lives of the elements. So you may say that this in itself proves the earth is at least that old. HOWEVER, the “scientifically illiterate” blogger to whom you wrote knows that there are assumptions that make radiometric dating “possible.” 1. Secular scientists assume that the decay rate of the parent element has not changed over time, that what they have observed in the past decades is the way it has always been. There is evidence to the contrary. 2. The assumption is made that no contamination has happened (actually, sometimes scientists carbon-dating assume that there has been contamination. They have a flat adjustment they apply universally, whether contamination is likely or not. Such adjustments sometimes yield infinite ages, which is unlikely to either young or old earth scientists). 3. Scientists who date rocks must believe that none of the daughter molecules were already present in the rock at formation. In some cases this is likely. In other cases this is not. No matter what, this assumption is not guaranteed to be accurate.
Finally, when radiometric techniques have been applied to rocks of known origin (from volcanic eruptions over recorded or witnessed history) have yielded ridiculously high (and wrong) dates.
I defy the scientific illiteracy of the biblical authors. They may not have had the same mathematics and models of atoms as we do, but maybe they knew other bits of science and technology of which we are ignorant. Who built the pyramids? Walls in S. America? 7 Wonders of the Ancient World?
I likewise defy your insinuation that I am scientifically illiterate. You should not judge my knowledge of science based on one BOOK review. The obvious intent of the review was to discuss the topics and tone of the book. The book does address some of your questions, but as I told Kama’aima, there are better books for skeptics. Also, the purpose of book reviews is to encourage people to read the book, not to give them all the information in my review.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
” they are not in this book writing to skeptics or people of other religions. ”
If the only purpose is to preach to those who already believe, then what is the point? Is their faith so fragile that it needs to be constantly buttressed? Is the evidence for an old earth so overwhelming that it needs to be denied yet again? Does the onrush of science marginalize the true believers to the extent that there is no room left to stand in the gaps?
Kama’aina,
There are all sorts of books written to people who already believe. These books add encouragement and understanding to Christians who have been gifted by God in other areas, or who are studying other topics and would like to read summaries and conclusions from those men who have been focusing on the debate. Science does not scare true believers, nor does it contradict their beliefs. The evidence for an old earth is certainly bombarding, but weak and unstable.
You seem to be a skeptic. I would refer you to less theological and more apologetic books and websites for such questions. I am obviously not writing to you either. My point in mentioning the audience for this book was to discourage you from reading it if you have serious questions about the existence of God and reliability of the Bible. One of my favorite books is Reasons, by Josh McDowell. This quick-reference book with short chapters was showing decades ago the false or ungrounded assumptions of dating methods and giving representative lists of the unreliability of dating methods (the same tusk carbon-dated millions of years different on one end from the other end, other such radiometric difficulties). Recently some Bible-supporting young-earth secularly credentialed scientists did the RATE project, diving into the questions about the age of the earth on a technical level. Thousands, Not Billions, is the layman edition, I think, of their conclusions. I haven’t read it, but did hear some of their speakers.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
Checkout http://DancingFromGenesis.com.
I haven’t read the book you are referring to, but I am very familiar with the literature of AiG and ICR, so I’d like to make two points:
1. A good majority of Christian geologists accept an old age for the Earth, even after considering the “evidence” given by AiG and ICR. The young-Earth arguments might look compelling to the average Christian, but almost none of them really work. If the AiG/ICR arguments were sound, many more Christian geologists (and other scientists) would be convinced.
2. Old earth interpretations are based on a careful examination of what the text says, not on some sort of compromise as is often implied. Many, many conservative Biblical scholars and theologians accept old-Earth interpretations as valid.
Grace and Peace
Kevin, First of all, I think that this book was written because it adds to the rest of the literature from AiG and ICR, so you should read it before making points about it.
Re: 1. What is your evidence that a majority of Christian geologists accept an old age for the Earth,a nd what is your definition of a Christian? Can you give an example of an ICR argument that doesn’t “really work”? The assumptions old-earth scientists make to arrive at their greater-than-6,000-year-ages, which are pointed out by Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, and Old-Earth Creationism on Trial are undeniably assumptions, and objective students and scientists would do well to reconsider the merits of accepting these assumptions, especially when they contradict other more solid scientific data.
Re: 2. This is a fraud. The Bible does not teach an old earth at all. Both a straightforward and an in-depth faithful reading of Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms, the gospels, and even the epistles and Revelation all give the history of a young earth, and testify to God’s supernatural instantaneous creation in 6 days. An old earth interpretation has only ever been “found” in the Bible when outside influences took precedent in the mind of the scholar (Greek philosophy, uniformitarianism like Lyell’s). This argument is the most important in the debate. How should we interpret the Bible? Is it true? Is it reliable? Does it apply to our world and our lives today? When it contradicts with the conclusions of culture or humans, however well meaning and educated, which will we believe? And are we willing to take the wise approach of using accumulated and revealed wisdom as our starting point and to build from there in our technological, philosophical, and practical (even domestic!) endeavors?
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
Check out this book, “Biblical Case for an Old Earth, A by David Snoke”. I found it very interesting . . .
God’s blessings, Don & Cindy.
I haven’t read the book as you suggested, but did I page through it in the bookstore today. After doing this, I hold to my statement that this isn’t good apologetics (even if one holds to a young-Earth interpretation of Genesis).
Here’s one example of the faulty reasoning contained in the book:
On page 124 (if I remember correctly), the authors use the amount of sea salts entering the oceans as one of their proofs that the Earth is young. According to the authors, if one measures the amount of salts entering the ocean and then compares that to the amount of salts that are already in the oceans, one can obtain the maximum age of the oceans. I forget the exact number they came up with, but the maximum age they gave is in the tens of millions of years, which is far less than the age of 4.5 billion years given by geologists.
Here’s the problem:
If you use this reasoning with the element sodium (part of sodium chloride), one ends up with a maximum age of 260 million years for the ocean. But there are many other elements in solution in seawater, and using the same reasoning, one obtains the following maximum ages for the ocean:
— K – 11 million years
— Cu – 50,000 years
— Pb – 2,000 years
— Fe – 140 years
— Al – 100 years
Using this sort of reasoning, one should come to the conclusion that the oceans are no more than 100 years old! Something is obviously wrong here. What is wrong is that we cannot determine the age of the oceans by these means.
What the authors fail to take into account is the various means by which elements can be removed from the oceans. They mention sea spray, but this is a minor means of removal. In today’s oceans, many of these elements are removed from the ocean over time as seawater circulates through the sediments and rocks in the oceanic crust. Additionally, there are huge deposits of salt in the sedimentary rock record, which is another way in which the various elements have been removed from seawater over time.
What is going on here is not a means of determination of the age of the oceans, but a demonstration of equilibrium. Sodium goes into the ocean, sodium is removed from the ocean at approximately the same rate. The same is true for all of the elements dissolved in seawater.
As I said in my previous comment, to use these sorts of faulty arguments works against evangelism of scientists and lays a poor apologetics foundation for our youth.