1 Introduction
Biblical creationism is the belief that Genesis 1-11 is historically reliable. Genesis 1-11 are written in historical narrative form.[1] Therefore, Genesis 1-11 should be interpreted the same as other narrative passages in the book of Genesis: as accurately describing true, historical events. The biblical account of creation teaches that God created everything described in Genesis 1-2 in six days approximately 6,000-7,500 years ago. Today, this view is popularly termed “young-earth creationism” by both proponents and critics.
1.1 The Critique
Critics of young-earth creationism have attacked this view by claiming that it is the product of 20th century Protestant fundamentalism. In his article “The Encounter Between Naturalist Atheism and Christian Theism,” Christian philosopher Dr. Michael Peterson[2] implies that Christians who deny evolution come from a “religious fundamentalist subculture that is barely over one hundred years old.” Peterson writes,
Among the many truths of science, the truths of evolution—both about the cosmos and the biological sphere—are intimately incorporated into the naturalist narrative. Both naturalists and many religious believers take these truths to be impossible or staggeringly difficult to reconcile with a classical Christian vision of the world and the human enterprise. However, this perception is based on a presentation of Christian faith rooted in religious fundamentalist subculture that is barely over one hundred years old. It is completely out of touch with the great theological doctrines and themes that form the rich intellectual framework of historic Christian orthodoxy.[3]
However, Peterson provides no examples and cites no sources to support these claims.
The authors of Reason and Religious Belief go a step further by clearly proposing that young-earth creationism is the product of the protestant fundamentalist movement of the late 19th and early 20th century.[4] Reason and Religious Belief is a philosophy textbook coauthored by Peterson and used by Peterson in his seminary course PH501 “Philosophy of Christian Religion.”[5] In this book, the authors write,
Although out of step with the majority of Christian thought through the centuries, a tenaciously literalistic approach to biblical interpretation became the hallmark of certain American Protestant denominations, or at least of large constituencies within those denominations. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, biblical literalism—often referred to as ‘Protestant fundamentalism’ or just ‘fundamentalism’—can be seen as a reaction to several aspects of intellectual culture: the rise of evolutionary biology, Freudian psychology, and German ‘higher criticism’ of the Bible.[6]
Likewise, the authors of this book provide no examples or sources to support their claims, yet they clearly indicate that young-earth creationism is the product of Protestant fundamentalism which began in “the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.” But is this historical claim accurate?
1.2 Thesis
Contrary to this historical claim, young-earth creationism has been the orthodox view of the Christian church for the vast majority of church history. Indeed, old-earth creationist Davis A. Young acknowledges, “It cannot be denied, in spite of frequent interpretations of Genesis 1 that departed from the rigidly literal, that the almost universal view of the Christian world until the eighteenth century was that the Earth was only a few thousand years old.”[7]
I argue that young-earth creationism is not the product of 20th century Protestant fundamentalism or any other ecclesial movement in church history because young-earth creationism can be found in numerous and diverse sources in the early church period, the Reformation period, and the early 1800’s. Thus, it is more reasonable to believe that young-earth creationism is the product of a proper interpretation of Genesis 1-11 than the product of any ecclesial movement.
2 Early Church Sources
Many of the early church leaders were young-earth creationists. James Mook[8] writes, “A natural reading of the Church fathers shows that though they held diverse views on the days of creation, and correctly gave priority to the theological meaning of the creation, they definitely asserted that the earth was created suddenly and in less than 6,000 years before their time.”[9] Many early church fathers interpreted the six days of creation as being 24-hour days, and some who allegorized the six days still believed that God created everything within one day or instantly.[10] Mook writes, “Allegorists, like Clement, Origen, and Augustine, did not consider the days of creation as 24-hour days, but, even as old-earth advocate Davis Young states, neither did they see nonliteral days conflicting with their young-earth views.”[11]
Mook notes that Lactantius (c. 250-325) “invoked the biblical account of creation against the old-earth views of Plato and other Greek philosophers, contending that less than 6,000 years ago God had created in six days.”[12] Lactantius wrote, “Therefore let the philosophers, who enumerate thousands of ages from the beginning of the world, know that the six thousandth year is not yet completed;’[13] Victorinus, bishop of Pettau (d. 304) believed that God created the world in six literal days.[14] Victorinus wrote, “God produced that entire mass for the adornment of His majesty in six days;”[15] Ephrem (c. 306-373), who was “one of the few fathers who knew Hebrews,” interpreted the days of creation literally and opposed allegorical interpretations of the days.[16] Basil of Caesarea (330-379) described the first day of creation as being a 24-hour day.[17] Basil was aware of allegorical interpretations of the Bible’s creation account, but he clearly rejected allegorical interpretations for a literal interpretation.[18] Also, Basil’s brother Gregory of Nyssa agreed with Basil’s view on creation.[19] Regarding Ambrose (c. 338-397), Mook writes, “Though a Neoplatonist and an Alexandrian type of allegorist in general, Ambrose had a literal concept for the length of the six days in his commentary on Basil’s Hexaemeron…”[20]
Now, some of early church leaders did interpret the six days of creation symbolically or allegorically such as Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-211 or 216), Origen (c. 185-254), and Augustine (354-430). However, Clement concluded that God created everything instantly.[21] After quoting from Clement, Mook writes, “This view, that God created everything ‘at once’ and together,’ would be espoused later by Origen and Augustine of Hippo.”[22] Furthermore, Clement indicates that in his day, the creation of Adam was less than 6,000 years ago.[23] Origen said that “the Mosaic account of the creation . . . teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that,...”[24] And Augustine wrote, “They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed.”[25] Mook says that “Augustine held this 6,000-year view because he believed that Scripture taught it, and he maintained the view against old-earth views of his day. For example, he opposed the Egyptian claim that it had had knowledge of the stars for more than 100,000 years – because their claim contradicted the history given by God.”[26]
Mook also provides evidence that Justin Martyr (c. 100-165), Irenaeus (c 130-202 or 212), Hippolytus (c. 170-235), Methodius (260-312), and other early church leaders believed that God created the world less than 6,000 years ago.[27] Theophilus of Antioch (died c. 183-185) gave a detailed account of the Bible’s chronology saying,
And from the foundation of the world the whole time is thus traced, so far as its main epochs are concerned. From the creation of the world to the deluge were 2242 years. And from the deluge to the time when Abraham our forefather begat a son, 1036 years. And from Isaac, Abraham’s son, to the time when the people dwelt with Moses in the desert, 660 years. And from the death of Moses and the rule of Joshua the son of Nun, to the death of the patriarch David, 498 years. And from the death of David and the reign of Solomon to the sojourning of the people in the land of Babylon, 518 years 6 months 10 days. And from the government of Cyrus to the death of the Emperor Aurelius Verus, 744 years. All the years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5698 years, and the odd months and days.[28]
Cyprian of Carthage (c. 205-258) also clearly affirmed the recent creation of mankind saying, “It is an ancient adversary and an old enemy with whom we wage our battle: six thousand years are now nearly completed since the devil first attacked man.”[29] Likewise Julius Africanus believed in the recent creation of Adam, giving two dates from Adam to Jesus: 5,500 years and 5,531 years.[30] Given these numerous patristic sources, one can reasonably conclude that the affirmation of the historical reliability of Genesis 1-11 is not the invention of 20th century Protestant fundamentalism.
3 Reformation Sources
In addition to these numerous early-church sources, many Reformation sources affirmed that God created everything described in Genesis 1-2 in six ordinary days approximately 6,000 years ago. Dr. David W. Hall writes, “When one considers the totality of primary sources, rather than the unsubstantiated claims of modern proponents of old-earth creationism, we will see that Martin Luther, John Calvin, the Westminster Divines, John Wesley, and the like are no friends of deep time or gradual creation.”[31]
3.1 Martin Luther
Hall writes, “Martin Luther’s view is so explicit as to largely go uncontested. Numerous citations could be assembled, showing that he clearly and firmly held to literal days, no death or natural evil before the Fall, and a global Flood.”[32] Historian Dr. Terry Mortenson says that Martin Luther “took the days of creation as literal 24-hour days, with the sun and the other heavenly bodies created on day 4 and … he believed all this took place less than 6,000 years before.”[33] Luther wrote,
When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are. For you are to deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind that God Himself says what is written. But since God is speaking, it is not fitting for you wantonly to turn His Word in the direction you wish to go.[34]
Against Augustine’s view, Luther wrote, “So far, then, as this idea of Augustine is concerned, we certainly hold that Moses spoke literally (proprie), not allegorically or figuratively, that is, that the world with all creatures was created within six days, as the words say (sonant). If we do not understand the reason why it was so done, let us remain pupils and leave the office of teaching to the Holy Spirit.”[35] Mortenson writes, “Criticizing Augustine at several points for his lapse into allegorical interpretations, Luther frequently insisted that the first 11 chapters were literal history.”[36]
3.2 John Calvin
Regarding John Calvin, Mortenson says that Calvin “took the early chapters of Genesis as reliable history handed down faithfully and without corruption from Adam to Moses.”[37] And Calvin “contended for a creation of the world in six literal days less than 6,000 years ago.”[38] Hall says that Calvin believed “(1) that light was created before the sun and moon, (2) that the gathering of the waters on day 2 was a miracle, (3) that He created the stars on the fourth day, (4) that Adam was made literally from the dust of the earth, (5) that the Flood was global, and (6) that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 were strict chronologies (with no gaps).”[39]
Unlike Augustine and others in his day, Calvin overtly rejected the idea that everything described in Genesis 1-2 was created in an instant. Calvin wrote, “Here the error of those is manifestly refuted, who maintain that the world was made in a moment. For it is too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the work which God perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of conveying instruction. Let us rather conclude that God himself took the space of six days, for the purpose of accommodating his works to the capacity of men.”[40] Calvin acknowledged that God could have created everything in a moment, but he believed that there was significance in God’s act of creating in six days. Calvin wrote, “For it was not without reason that he distributed the making of the world into six days; though it would have been no more difficult for him to complete the whole work in all its parts at once in a single moment, than to arrive at its completion by such progressive advances.”[41]
Calvin clearly believed in a young creation saying that “little more than five thousand years have elapsed since the creation of the world.”[42] Elsewhere, Calvin wrote, “the continuance of the world now advancing to its last end has not yet reached six thousand years.”[43] Furthermore, Calvin was aware that the Egyptians held to a longer view of history saying “the Egyptians . . . extend their antiquity to six thousand years before the creation of the world.”[44] But he rejected this old-earth view for the biblical chronology of creation.
3.3 John Wesley
John Wesley (1703-1791) also affirmed a recent creation, and he affirmed scientific knowledge. Mortenson says that Wesley “clearly valued the practical benefits of science and wrote two books to popularize useful knowledge in medicine and electricity.”[45] Mortenson continues saying that Wesley “never wrote extensively on creation or the Flood, but in this work [Survey of the Wisdom of God in the Creation] he stated his belief that the various rock strata were ‘doubtless formed by the general Deluge’ and that the account of creation, which was about 4,000 years before Christ, was, along with the rest of the Scriptures, ‘void of any material error.’ ”[46]
3.4 Other Reformation Sources
Dr. David W. Hall provides citations from numerous other Reformation sources affirming young-earth views on creation.[47] Anglican bishop Hugh Latimer (1485-1555) affirmed that the world was less than 6,000 years old in his day.[48] Wolfgang Musculus (1497-1563) interpreted the days of Genesis 1 as ordinary days.[49] Peter Martyr (1499-1562) “affirmed that the first days, complete with evening and morning, were ordinary days, prior to the creation of the sun;”[50] Francois Hotman (1524-1590) “thought the days were sequential, ordinary, and calculated as we count normal days today.”[51] Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583) and William Perkins (1558–1602) affirmed that the earth was less than 6,000 years old in their day.[52] John Diodati (1576-1649) “articulated several times the same view as Calvin” regarding the creation account in Genesis.[53]
Hall says that “The 1619 Dutch Annotations upon the Whole Bible Ordered by the Synod of Dordt was a commentary admired by the Westminster Divines and other Puritans,” and it clearly states that the days of Genesis 1 were 24-hour days.[54] Likewise, Johannes Polyander (1568-1646), Johan Osiander, and Johann Henrici Heideggeri (1633-1698) all indicate in their writings that the days of Genesis 1 were literal days.[55] Hall declares, “No reputable Reformed theologian from Calvin through 50 years after Westminster provides any theological latitude for what are now known as the gap theory, the day-age theory, the analogical days theory, or the framework hypothesis.”[56]
William Ames (1576-1633) indicates that he believed in a 6-day creation; William Perkins (1558-1602) clearly taught that God created the world between 5 and 6 thousand years ago; and Henry Ainsworth (1571–1622) clearly affirmed 24-hour days in Genesis 1.[57] Gervase Babington (1550-1610) indicated that God did not create everything instantly but rather in six days; Andrew Willet (1562-1621) also denied an instantaneous creation and affirmed a six-day creation.[58] Furthermore, John Richardson (1580-1654), Bishop of Ardagh, and Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626), Bishop of Winchester, affirmed 24-hour days in Genesis 1.[59]
Hall says that Andrew Willet’s work, Hexapla in Genesis (London: 1632), “indicates that the generation prior to the Westminster Assembly consistently denied Augustine’s view of instantaneous creation.”[60] Hall also says, “It seems indisputable that Reformed exegetes rather uniformly rejected Augustinian’s thinking on this point, following instead Peter Lombard and Aquinas.”[61] Furthermore, “Shortly after the Westminster Assembly, John Owen, Thomas Vincent, Thomas Manton, Thomas Watson, Francis Turretin, and many others confirmed the view of their predecessors, as well as repudiating the Augustinian view.”[62]
In his Catechism (c. 1640), Thomas Wylie said that God could have created everything in an instant, but He actually created in six days. Thomas Boston (1676-1732) also opposed the Augustinian view of an instant creation and affirmed creation in six days, and Francis Turretin (1623-1687) “noted, but then rejected, the Augustinian view and sided with Ussher...”[63] Thomas Ridgeley (1667-1734) “discussed the Augustinian theory of instant creation, and clearly voiced his disagreement,” and he clearly affirmed that the world is between 5 and 6 thousand years old.[64]
William Beveridge (1637-1708) indicated that the days of creation were ordinary days, and Ezekiel Hopkins (1633-1689) believed in a recent creation, for he said that it was about 2,450 years after creation that Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt.[65] Francis Roberts (1609-1675) and John Trapp (1601-1669) both indicated that the days of Genesis 1 were ordinary days and that creation occurred about 6,000 years ago; likewise, George Hughes (1603-1667) indicted that the days in Genesis 1 were ordinary days.[66]
Hall also discusses the creation views of the following Bible commentators: Thomas Scott (1747-1821), George D’Oyly (1778-1846), Adam Clarke (1762-1832), John Gill (1697-1771), Andrew Fuller (1754-1815), and Matthew Henry (1662-1714). Then Hall summarizes his findings saying, “All these commentators held to a literal six-day creation about 4,000 B.C. and a global Flood at the time of Noah. English commentaries did not abandon this view until about 1845, by which time Lyell’s uniformitarian framework for interpreting the rocks was in complete control of geology.”[67] Given these numerous Reformation sources, one can reasonably conclude that the affirmation of the historical reliability of Genesis 1-11 is not the invention of 20th century Protestant fundamentalism.
4 Scriptural Geologist Sources
The strongest evidence against the claim that young-earth creationism is a product of 20th century Protestant fundamentalism comes from a study of the “scriptural geologists” of the early 19th century. This historical evidence also refutes the claim that young-earth creationism is the product of Seventh Day Adventism, which is advocated by agnostic Ronald L. Numbers in his book The Creationist. Dr. Michael Peterson approvingly teaches Numbers’ claim that young-earth creationism is a product of Seventh Day Adventism.[68] Furthermore, Peterson is not the only scholar who cites Numbers’ book approvingly.[69]
“Scriptural geologists,” also called “Mosaic Geologists” because of their adherence to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, were lay leaders, clergy, and/or scientists who lived in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. These scholars were aware of the geological views of their day, including the old-earth views which were becoming more popular both in universities and in the church. Nevertheless, they opposed old-earth views such as the gap theory and the day age theory, and they defended the historical reliability of Genesis 1-11. While many of these scriptural geologists were not scientists, others were just as geologically knowledgeable and competent as their geologist peers.
Historian Dr. Terry Mortenson wrote his Ph.D. on the history of geology by studying these scriptural geologists and their old-earth contemporaries. His book The Great Turning Point: The Church’s Catastrophic Mistake on Geology – Before Darwin is based upon his doctoral thesis. In this book, Mortenson begins by explaining some historical background information regarding science, geology, and biblical interpretation. Afterwards, he provides a biographical sketch of seven scriptural geologists. He includes summaries and lengthy quotations from their writings which were published predominantly between 1820-1845. Mortenson demonstrates that these scholars were well aware of the old-earth views of their day. They were aware of geologic evidence for those old-earth views, and they were aware of attempts to reconcile an old-earth with the book of Genesis, such as the gap theory and the day-age theory. Nevertheless, these scriptural geologists defended the historical reliability of Genesis 1-11. They used biblical, theological, and empirical evidence to support their young-earth views and their belief in a global Flood. Furthermore, they sought to refute the old-earth arguments of their peers. Mortenson also notes that these scriptural geologists held views “very similar to those of modern young-earth creationists.”[70] They used some of the same empirical evidence to support their young-earth views that modern creationists use.[71]
Critics of the scriptural geologists such as Martin Rudwick claim that few or none of them were competent in geology.[72] However, using Rudwick’s own three-tiered description of geological competency, Mortenson demonstrates that “George Young, John Murray, William Rhind, and George Fairholme were quite competent in geology (possessing even some of the extra characteristics [of geologic competency] mentioned above) and had as much or more first and secondhand geological knowledge than some of those categorized by Rudwick as accomplished, or even elite, geologist.”[73]
These scriptural geologists did not argue against empirical observations or scientific data. Indeed, they greatly valued scientific investigation. Instead, they argued against interpretations of geological data which contradicted the historical events of Genesis 1-11.[74]
Mortenson researched about thirty scriptural geologists.[75] The seven whom he highlights in his book are Granville Penn (1761-1844), George Bugg (1769-1851), Andrew Ure (1778-1857), George Fairholme (1789-1846), John Murray (1786?-1851), George Young (1777-1848), and William Rhind (1797-1874).
4.1 Granville Penn (1761-1844)
Granville Penn was the grandson of William Penn, the founder of the colony of Pennsylvania.[76] Although Granville Penn was not a geologist, he was not ignorant of geology: “he was well read in the geological literature of his day.”[77] Also, he had a positive attitude toward science: “Penn never expressed any opposition to the study of geology or any other science. On the contrary, he affirmed that geology is a ‘delightful study,’ and mineralogy is a ‘sound and valuable science.’”[78]
In 1822 Penn wrote A comparative Estimate of the Mineral and Mosaical Geologies with a second revised edition published in 1825.[79] He affirmed and defended a 6-day creation about 6,000 years ago: “In his interpretation of Scripture he used his skills in biblical and literary criticism to build his case for a literal six-day creation about 6,000 years ago…”[80] He used both biblical and empirical evidence to argue for a global Flood against old-earth views regarding the flood,[81] and he refuted both George Stanley Faber’s day-age theory and the gap theory.[82]
4.2 George Bugg (1769-1851)
George Bugg was an ordained deacon and priest in the Anglican church. Mortenson writes, “Every indication is that Bugg was a fervent evangelical Anglican all his life. . . . Never was he accused of any particular doctrinal error, moral misconduct, or ecclesiastical irresponsibility.”[83]
In 1826 and 1827 respectively, Bugg published the two volumes of his book Scriptural Geology.[84] Like Penn, “Bugg did not have (or claim) geological competence, but neither was he totally ignorant of geological facts and theories.”[85] Bugg “accepted the facts as described by the leading geologists, many of whose writings he had read. His work, representing three to four years of study, contains many lengthy, documented quotations from the current relevant books of such old-earth proponents as Buckland, Cuvier, Faber, Sumner, and Phillips and from relevant recent scientific journal articles.”[86]
Bugg had a high view of the accuracy of the Bible: “Bugg held to the dominant view of evangelicals and high churchmen regarding the infallibility of the Scriptures, not just in matters of religion and morality, but also of history. He also believed that, at least with respect to Genesis, the ‘plain’ and ‘obvious’ literal meaning is the correct one.”[87]
Bugg affirmed a 6-day creation about 6,000 years old; although, “he did not discuss the genealogies or the exact age of the earth.”[88] He used both biblical and theological evidence to refute the old-earth views of his day such as Faber’s day-age theory and the gap theory.[89] Also, he defended the global Flood against contemporary old-earth views on the flood.[90]
4.3 Andrew Ure (1778-1857)
Andrew Ure was a scientist and teacher who specialized in chemistry: “As a chemist, he was highly esteemed by contemporary scientists, and Michael Faraday said that not one of Ure’s chemical analysis was ever impugned.”[91] He was a member of numerous scholarly societies of his day: “He was one of the original honorary fellows of the Geological Society of London shortly after it was founded in 1807, was an original member of the Astronomical Society, and became a fellow of the Royal Society in 1822.”[92] Also, he was the “professor of natural philosophy (specializing in chemistry and physics) at the recently formed Andersonian Institution (now the University of Strathclyde) in Glasgow,” and he gave public lectures on science for about 20 years.[93]
He wrote seven books and dozens of journal articles on scientific subjects including A New System of Geology, published in 1829.[94] Although he was not a geologist and did not participate in “original geological investigations” in writing this book, he drew from other geological sources.[95] He saw no conflict between geological data and the history of the Bible: “Ure believed that when both the geological phenomena and the Scriptures were rightly interpreted they would agree, since both were the work of God.”[96] He affirmed the scientific method of investigation based upon repeatable observations and experiments, and he carefully noted that the Bible is not a book of science. But he believed that the Bible is true regarding historical events of the past, and it includes information regarding the origin of physical phenomena which empirical science cannot explain.[97]
Believing the Bible to be “the unerring oracles of God,” Ure affirmed a 6-day creation completed about 6,000 years ago.[98] He opposed both the gap theory and the day-age theory using both biblical and theological arguments. For example, “In opposition to both the day-age theory and gap theory, he argued that both the contextual use of ‘day’ in Genesis 1 and God’s commentary in Exodus 20:8-11 prove that the creation days were 24 hours long, the length of one rotation of the earth, and that the first day was the beginning of the whole creation.”[99] Also, he opposed old-earth views with this theological argument: the fossil record with its “dismal ruin of all organic beings” does not reflect God’s wise creation but rather God’s wrath against sin.[100] Also, Ure affirmed the global Flood, and he wrote extensively about its affects on geologic formations and the post-flood climate.[101]
4.4 George Fairholme (1789-1846)
Although George Fairholme was probably self-educated, Mortenson says that “His writing tyle, vocabulary, and evident literary research skills reflect a high level of education.”[102] He was evidently fluent in French and German; he was respected by peers who were scientists; and “There is also ample evidence that he conducted his own personal geological investigations.”[103] In addition to writing seven journal articles on diverse scientific topics, he wrote two books on scriptural geology.[104] These two books are General View of the Geology of Scripture (1st edition = 1833; 2nd edition = 1838) and New and Conclusive Physical Demonstrations Both of the Fact and Period of the Mosaic Deluge, and of Its Having Been the Only Event of the Kind That has Ever Occurred upon the Earth (1st edition = 1837; 2nd edition = 1840).[105] Commenting on these books, Mortenson notes, “His two books on geology were motivated by a deep conviction about the historical, as well as theological and moral, truth of Scripture and the detrimental effects that old-earth reinterpretations of Genesis would have on faith in the rest of the Bible.”[106]
Fairholme “was most certainly not opposed to the study of geology, but only the old-earth geological theories, which he believed were contradictory to both Scripture and the scientific facts.”[107] Regarding “the relationship between Scripture and geology,” Mortenson says that, “Fairholme did not discuss at length his view of the Bible. But clearly he held to the traditional Christian view of the inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture.”[108] Mortenson notes that “Fairholme used both the words ‘infallible’ and ‘unerring,’ though he favored the latter by referring to the unerring character, dictates, truths, and sources of Scripture. His comments suggest that he had essentially the same view as modern Christians who hold to the complete ‘inerrancy’ of Scripture.”[109]
Fairholme affirmed a 6-day creation; and he affirmed that creation “did not improve gradually from an imperfect state over eons of time” but was created perfect from the beginning.[110] Also, he affirmed the global Flood, and he used empirical evidence to support his belief in a global flood and a young earth.[111] He opposed numerous old-earth advocates of his day including Charles Lyell, John Playfair, James Hutton, William Buckland, and Adam Sedgwick, but he “displayed a very respectful attitude” towards them.[112]
4.5 John Murray (1786?-1851)
While many scriptural geologists are mentioned by other historians of geology, Mortenson notes that John Murray has been overlooked by leading historians such as “Gillispie, Yule, Millhauser, Rupke, Roberts.”[113] Murray earned an MA and a PhD; he “was competent in geology and was a very well-known scientist” in his day.[114] While he called himself a “lecturer on the philosophy of physics and chemistry,” he was very knowledgeable about a wide breadth of scientific and literary subjects.[115] He wrote 28 books, over 60 journal articles, and “He had nearly 20 inventions which came into practical use.”[116] Regarding his view of geology, Mortenson says, “Murray loved geology for it ‘charms and instructs the reflective mind’ and has a very practical utility in wise and profitable mining, farming, well-drilling, and the construction of buildings, roads, canals, and railways.”[117]
Murray wrote two books regarding geology and the Bible: The Truth of Revelation (1st edition = 1831; 2nd edition = 1840) and Portrait of Geology (1838). The latter of which “was written to give proofs from geology of divine design in creation, and secondarily to add verification to the truth of Scripture.”[118]
Murray affirmed a 6-day creation which occurred 6,000-10,000 years ago. Mortenson notes, “He discussed the date of Ussher (4004 B.C.), Dr. Hales (5411 B.C.), the Samaritans (6084 B.C.) and the Septuagint (7229 B.C.), as well as the efforts of Halley and Newton to reconcile the discrepancies between these chronologies,” but he was not committed to any particular date.[119]
He held to a high view of Scripture saying, “I acknowledge no authentic record of creation, except the chronicles of revelation.”[120] He affirmed a global Flood and provided geological evidence for the global Flood.[121] Also, like other scriptural geologists, he refuted both the day-age theory and the gap theory using biblical evidence.[122]
Summarizing Murray’s worldview, Mortenson writes, “Contrary to the general charges leveled against the 19th century scriptural geologists, Murray was a highly qualified and respected scientist with a competent knowledge of geology who believed, because of both the biblical teaching and the geological evidence, that God created the world in six literal days a few thousand years ago and that He judged the world in a unique, global Flood.”[123]
4.6 George Young (1777-1848)
Perhaps the most notable scriptural geologist is George Young who was both a pastor and a scientist.[124] In 1806 he became the pastor of Whitby Chapel in North Yorkshire where he served until his death 42 years later. In 1819 he earned an MA from the University of Edinburgh, and “in 1838 he received an honorary degree of Doctor of Divinity from Miami College (Oxford, Ohio).”[125] He was acquainted with multiple languages, and he was heavily involved in numerous intellectual societies of his day.[126] “On the subject of geology, Young wrote six scientific journal articles and three books.”[127] These three books are A Geological Survey of the Yorkshire Coast (1822; revised edition = 1826), Scriptural Geology (1838), and an Appendix to Scriptural Geology (1840), which was a response to John Pye Smith’s local creation and local flood view.[128] His works received positive reviews from his peers.[129]
Mortenson notes that “Young had an obvious love for the study of geology and saw it not as a threat, but as an aid to faith.”[130] Even though Young was cautious in his geological claims, “more than any of the other geologically informed scriptural geologists, Young presented the most thorough explanation at his time of how the whole geological record could be harmonized with a literal reading of the Genesis account of creation and the Noachian flood.”[131]
In his book, Geological Survey (1828), he used much geologic evidence and biblical evidence to refute the old-earth views of his day.[132] In his book Scriptural Geology (1838) and its appendix (1840), Young also used geologic evidence, biblical evidence, and theological arguments to oppose old-earth views such as the gap theory and the local flood view of Smith.[133]
He believed that the days of creation were literal days, and he provided biblical evidence for this conclusion. For example, the phase “morning and evening” describes the days of creation, and the fourth commandment in Exodus 20:11 mentions that God created in six days.[134]
In summary, Mortenson declares that Young was “a very competent geologist who was motivated to write on the subject of geology out of a sincere passion for truth, both scientific and biblical.”[135] Young did not oppose geological facts but rather “objected to old-earth interpretations of those facts. . . . Using both geological and scriptural arguments, he attempted to provide a brief answer to every difficulty and objection to the biblical view of earth history of which he was aware.”[136]
4.7 William Rhind (1797-1874)
Mortenson notes, “Like John Murray, William Rhind is virtually unknown in historical discussions of the scriptural geologists. But he is important to consider because of his geological qualifications to debate the issues of his day.”[137] His education was largely in medicine, but “he spent nearly 40 years of his life writing and lecturing on various subjects of natural science, primarily botany, zoology, and geology.”[138] There is good evidence that he was “well-read in all the leading geological literature of his day” and that he himself practiced geological field-work.[139] Mortenson writes, “It is obvious from the books he wrote that Rhind was anything but anti-geology.”[140]
Rhind wrote numerous books on various subjects including history, botany, zoology, geology, and meteorology. Most notably, he wrote The Age of the Earth in 1838 which provides geological evidence against old-earth views.[141] He refuted old-earth interpretations of the Bible such as the gap theory, the day-age theory, and the “theological framework theory,” and he defended the global Flood.[142]
Regarding the days of creation, Mortenson says that Rhind “favored the traditional literal interpretation of Genesis. But he was not dogmatic about the time involved in Genesis 1.”[143] Still, he affirmed that Genesis 1 “could not be made to harmonize with the dominant geological theories of his day.”[144] Indeed, Rhind often affirmed that Genesis affords an accurate account of the history of creation and early human history.[145]
4.8 Summary of the Scriptural Geologists
These and other early 19th century scriptural geologists provide ample evidence to refute the claim that young-earth creationism is a product of 20th century Protestant fundamentalism. Furthermore, these sources provide ample evidence against Ronald Numbers’ claim that young-earth creationism is the product of Seventh Day Adventism. Mortenson writes,
Like most Christians in previous church history and in the early 19th century, all the scriptural geologists believed that Genesis 1-11 provided a divinely inspired and historically accurate account of the origin and early history of the world. This was in contrast to the emerging view that Genesis was a semi-historical, poetical or mythical theological treatise written by pre-scientific and primitive people, like the cosmologies of the ancient Greeks, Egyptians, Hindus and others. In contrast to their old-earth opponents, many of whom also believed in the inspiration, infallibility, and historicity of Genesis 1-11, the scriptural geologists held to a literal six-day creation approximately 6,000 years ago.[146]
Most scriptural geologists also noted that Genesis teaches theological truths in addition to historical truths. They defended the historical reliability of Genesis 1-11 because they believed that undermining the historicity of Genesis could lead to dangers such as theological errors and the erosion of the historical reliability of other portions of the Bible.[147]
5 Conclusion
Given these numerous and diverse sources throughout church history, one can confidently conclude that young-earth creationism is not the product of 20th century Protestant fundamentalism or the product of Seventh Day Adventism. The seminary textbook Reason and Religions Belief declares in no uncertain terms that young-earth creationism is “out of step with the majority of Christian thought through the centuries.”[148] Ironically, history affirms the exact opposite; Old-earth creationists are “out of step with the majority of Christian thought through the centuries.” Again, Old-earth creationist Davis A. Young acknowledges, “It cannot be denied . . . that the almost universal view of the Christian world until the eighteenth century was that the Earth was only a few thousand years old.”[149] As Mortenson reveals in his doctoral thesis and his book The Great Turning Point, pastors and scientists continued to affirm and defend young-earth creationism into the early half of the 19th century.
Beginning in the patristic period and continuing to the present day, Christians have defended the historical reliability of Genesis 1-11 against old-earth views of their day. Today, Christian intellectuals, including Bible scholars, theologians, and scientists from diverse fields and diverse ecclesial backgrounds, continue to defend the historical reliability of God’s Word.[150] History affirms that young-earth creationism is not the product of any particular ecclesial movement or historical figure. Rather, young-earth creationism is the product of the Word of God. Church history strongly affirms that young-earth creationism is the correct interpretation of Genesis 1-11. The Bible does not teach that God created everything mentioned in Genesis 1-2 millions and billions of years ago. Rather, the Bible teaches that God created everything mentioned in Genesis 1-2 in just six days approximately 6,000 years ago. Those who affirm young-earth creationism hold true to the orthodox view of the Christian church regarding the doctrine of creation.
Footnotes
[1] Steven Boyd, “A Proper Reading of Genesis 1:1-2:3,” in Thousands, Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution: Questioning the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2005), 157–70; Steven W. Boyd, “The Genre of Genesis 1:1-2:3: What Means This Text?,” in Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008), 163–92; Travis R. Freeman, “Do the Genesis 5 and 11 Genealogies Contain Gaps?,” in Coming to Grips with Genesis (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008), 283–313; Trevor Craigen, “Can Deep Time Be Embedded in Genesis?,” in Coming to Grips with Genesis (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008), 193–210; Todd S. Beall, “Contemporary Hermeneutical Approaches to Genesis 1-11,” in Coming to Grips with Genesis (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008), 131–62; Eugene H. Merrill, “‘Where Are You, Adam?’ The Disappearance of Adam and the Death of Truth,” in Searching for Adam: Genesis & the Truth About Man’s Origin (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2016), 113–38. See also, Terry Mortenson, “Jesus’ View of the Age of the Earth,” in Coming to Grips with Genesis (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008), 315–46; Ron Minton, “Apostolic Witness to Genesis Creation and the Flood,” in Coming to Grips with Genesis (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008), 347–71; William D. Barrick, “Old Testament Evidence for a Literal, Historical Adam and Eve,” in Searching for Adam (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2016), 17–51; David A. Croteau and Michael P. Naylor, “The Question of a Historical Adam: A New Testament Perspective,” in Searching for Adam (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2016), 53–72. [2] For a bio of Dr. Michael Peterson, see https://asburyseminary.edu/faculty/michael-peterson/. [3] Michael Peterson et al., Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, Fifth Edition. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 447. Emphasis added. [4] Michael Peterson et al., Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, Fifth Edition. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 295. [5] I took this course as an online class in the spring of 2022 at Asbury Theological Seminary. [6] Peterson et al., Reason and Religious Belief, 295. [7] Davis A. Young, Christianity and the Age of the Earth, Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1982), 25. [8] James mook earned a Th.M. and Th.D. in historical theology from Dallas Theological Seminary. See, Terry Mortenson and Thane H. Ury, eds., Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008), 467.
[9] James R. Mook, “The Church Fathers on Genesis, the Flood, and the Age of the Earth,” in Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008), 26. [10] Mook, “The Church Fathers on Genesis, the Flood, and the Age of the Earth,” 23–51. [11] Mook, “The Church Fathers on Genesis, the Flood, and the Age of the Earth,” 29. Mook cites Young, Christianity and the Age of the Earth, 19, 22. [12] Mook, “The Church Fathers on Genesis, the Flood, and the Age of the Earth,” 29. [13] Lactantius, “The Divine Institutes,” in Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries: Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius, Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Homily, and Liturgies, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. William Fletcher, vol. 7 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 211. Emphasis added. [14] Cf. Mook, “The Church Fathers on Genesis, the Flood, and the Age of the Earth,” 29–30. [15] Victorinus of Pettau, “On the Creation of the World,” in Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries: Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius, Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Homily, and Liturgies, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 7 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 341. [16] Mook, “The Church Fathers on Genesis, the Flood, and the Age of the Earth,” 30. [17] Basil of Caesarea, “The Hexaemeron,” in St. Basil: Letters and Select Works, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Blomfield Jackson, vol. 8 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1895), 64. [18] Basil of Caesarea, “The Hexaemeron,” 101-102 [19] Mook, “The Church Fathers on Genesis, the Flood, and the Age of the Earth,” 32. [20] Mook, “The Church Fathers on Genesis, the Flood, and the Age of the Earth,” 35. [21] Mook, “The Church Fathers on Genesis, the Flood, and the Age of the Earth,” 32. [22] Mook, “The Church Fathers on Genesis, the Flood, and the Age of the Earth,” 33. [23] Clement of Alexandria, “The Stromata, or Miscellanies,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 2 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 332. [24] Origen, “Origen against Celsus,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Frederick Crombie, vol. 4 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 404. For more on Origen and why Origen is no ally of old-earth creationists, see Mook, “The Church Fathers on Genesis, the Flood, and the Age of the Earth,” 34-45. [25] Augustine of Hippo, “The City of God,” in St. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Marcus Dods, vol. 2 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 232. Emphasis added. [26] Mook, “The Church Fathers on Genesis, the Flood, and the Age of the Earth,” 46. [27] Mook, “The Church Fathers on Genesis, the Flood, and the Age of the Earth,” 38–43. [28] Theophilus of Antioch, “Theophilus to Autolycus,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Marcus Dods, vol. 2 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 120. Emphasis added. [29] Cyprian of Carthage, “Exhortation to Martyrdom, Addressed to Fortunatus,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 496. Emphasis added. [30] Dionysius of Alexandria, “The Extant Fragments of the Five Books of the Chronography of Julius Africanus,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius the Great, Julius Africanus, Anatolius and Minor Writers, Methodius, Arnobius, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. S. D. F. Salmond, vol. 6 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 131 and 138. [31] David W. Hall, “A Brief Overview of the Exegesis of Genesis 1-11: Luther to Lyell,” in Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008), 54–55. [32] Hall, “A Brief Overview of the Exegesis of Genesis 1-11: Luther to Lyell,” 55. See Hall’s and Thane Ury’s sections of this book for citations from Martin Luther. [33] Terry Mortenson, The Great Turning Point: The Church’s Catastrophic Mistake on Geology - Before Darwin (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004), 41. [34] Ewald M. Plass, ed., What Luther Says: An Anthology (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1959), 3:1523. [35] Plass, What Luther Says: An Anthology, 3:1524. [36]Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 41. Mortenson cites: Luther's Works edited by Jaroslav Pelikan, Vol. I: Genesis 1-5 (1958), p. 5, 19, 89, 122-123; and Vol. II Genesis 6-14 (1960), p. 150-153. [37]Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 42. Mortenson cites: “John Calvin, Genesis (1992), translated by John King, p. 58-59; John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (1994), translated by Henry Begeridge, p. 141-142.” [38] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 42. [39] Hall, “A Brief Overview of the Exegesis of Genesis 1-11: Luther to Lyell,” 58–59. Hall cites, “Calvin, Genesis, p. 76 (point 1 above), 81 (point 2), 83 (point 3), 111 (point 4), 250, 272, and 281 (point 5), and 231 and 313 (point 6).” [40] Quoted in Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 42. Mortenson cites, John Calvin, Genesis (1992), translated by John King, p. 76 and 78. This quotation can be found online at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library here: https://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol01/htm/vii.htm. [41] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. John Allen (New-Haven, Philadelphia: Hezekiah Howe; Philip H. Nicklin, 1816), 1:193. [42] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. John Allen (New-Haven, Philadelphia: Hezekiah Howe; Philip H. Nicklin, 1816), 2:418. [43] Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1:170. Emphasis added. [44] Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1:89. [45] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 42. [46]Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 42. In a footnote here, Mortenson writes, “John Wesley, Survey of the Wisdom of God in the Creation (1763), II: p. 22, 227. On the Flood see also his sermon on original sin in The Works of the Rev. John Wesley (1829-31), IV: p. 54-65.” [47] For citations of these Reformation sources, see David W. Hall, “A Brief Overview of the Exegesis of Genesis 1-11: Luther to Lyell,” in Coming to Grips with Genesis (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008), 53–78. [48] Hall, “A Brief Overview of the Exegesis of Genesis 1-11: Luther to Lyell,” 55. [49] Hall, “A Brief Overview of the Exegesis of Genesis 1-11: Luther to Lyell,” 61–62. [50] Hall, “A Brief Overview of the Exegesis of Genesis 1-11: Luther to Lyell,” 62. [51] Hall, “A Brief Overview of the Exegesis of Genesis 1-11: Luther to Lyell,” 63. [52] Hall, “A Brief Overview of the Exegesis of Genesis 1-11: Luther to Lyell,” 64. [53] Hall, “A Brief Overview of the Exegesis of Genesis 1-11: Luther to Lyell,” 64–65. [54] Hall, “A Brief Overview of the Exegesis of Genesis 1-11: Luther to Lyell,” 65. [55] Hall, “A Brief Overview of the Exegesis of Genesis 1-11: Luther to Lyell,” 65–66. [56] Hall, “A Brief Overview of the Exegesis of Genesis 1-11: Luther to Lyell,” 66. [57] Hall, “A Brief Overview of the Exegesis of Genesis 1-11: Luther to Lyell,” 67–68. [58] Hall, “A Brief Overview of the Exegesis of Genesis 1-11: Luther to Lyell,” 68–69. [59] Hall, “A Brief Overview of the Exegesis of Genesis 1-11: Luther to Lyell,” 69. [60] Hall, “A Brief Overview of the Exegesis of Genesis 1-11: Luther to Lyell,” 69. [61] Hall, “A Brief Overview of the Exegesis of Genesis 1-11: Luther to Lyell,” 70. [62] Hall, “A Brief Overview of the Exegesis of Genesis 1-11: Luther to Lyell,” 70–71. [63] Hall, “A Brief Overview of the Exegesis of Genesis 1-11: Luther to Lyell,” 71. [64] Hall, “A Brief Overview of the Exegesis of Genesis 1-11: Luther to Lyell,” 72. [65] Hall, “A Brief Overview of the Exegesis of Genesis 1-11: Luther to Lyell,” 72. [66] Hall, “A Brief Overview of the Exegesis of Genesis 1-11: Luther to Lyell,” 73. [67] Hall, “A Brief Overview of the Exegesis of Genesis 1-11: Luther to Lyell,” 77. [68] This information comes from my class notes for PH600 “Suffering, Tragedy, and Christian Faith.” I took this course taught by Dr. Michael Peterson in the fall of 2022 at Asbury Theological Seminary. On November 8, 2022, Peterson mentioned in class that Ronald Numbers is a friend of his, and Peterson specifically taught us students that young-earth creationism is a product of Seventh Day Adventism, citing the 2nd edition of Numbers’ book The Creationists. ADDENDUM: Also, I took PH605 "Science and Christian Faith" from Dr. Peterson in the Spring 2023 semester at ATS. Likewise, Dr. Peterson taught in class that young-earth creationism came from Seventh Day Adventism, citing Numbers' book. [69] Cf. Jason Lisle and Tim Chaffey, “Defense—Poor Reasoning,” Answers in Genesis, 12 January 2012, https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/old-earth/defense-poor-reasoning/; Ken Ham, “My Parents Are to Blame!,” Answers in Genesis, 10 January 2017, https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2017/01/10/my-parents-are-to-blame/. [70] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 15. [71] Cf. Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 130, 203–6. [72] See Martin Rudwick’s diagram in his book The Great Devonian Controversy (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Pres, 1985), 29. This same diagram can be found in Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 49. See also Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 13-15, for other criticisms against the scriptural geologists. [73] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 54. For details on the characteristics of geologic competency, see pp. 45-54. [74] Cf. Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 58–59, 61–62, 83, 104, 130, 177–78. [75] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 16. [76] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 57. [77] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 58. [78] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 61. [79] Mortenson says, “ ‘Mineral geology’ is how Penn referred to the old-earth theories. ‘Mosaical geology’ refers to the young-earth view he was defending.” Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 58. [80] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 75. [81] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 71–74. [82] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 70. The gap theory was popularized by Rev. Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847) beginning in 1804. See, p. 33 and 35. [83] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 78. [84] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 79. [85] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 82. [86] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 82. [87] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 79. [88] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 84. [89] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 84–87. [90] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 88–90. [91] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 100. [92] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 100. [93] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 99. [94] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 101. [95] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 102. [96] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 104. [97] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 104–6, 113. [98] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 105–6. [99] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 106. [100] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 108. Today, young-earth creationists use this same theological argument against old-earth views: death, including animal death, is the result of man’s sin. Animal death is not a “very good” (Gen. 1:31) aspect of God’s creation. [101] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 108–10. [102] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 117. [103] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 117. [104] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 116–17. [105] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 116. Mortenson shortens the titles of these books to Geology of Scripture and Mosaic Deluge. [106] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 130. [107] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 130. [108] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 122. [109] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 122. [110] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 128. [111] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 128–30. [112] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 120. [113] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 131. [114] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 131. [115] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 131–32. [116] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 132. [117] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 139. [118] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 135. [119] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 150. [120] Quoted in Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 142. See also 144-145 for Murray’s high view on the Bible against sources which contradict the Bible. [121] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 151–54. [122] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 149. [123] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 154. [124] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 157. [125] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 157–58. [126] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 158–59. [127] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 159. [128] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 159. Note: Murray’s first book was “written with the assistance of John Bird” who drew “the illustrations for this book.” Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 159. [129] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 161–62. [130] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 160. [131] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 164. [132] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 166–68. [133] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 168–77. [134] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 168. [135] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 177. [136] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 178. [137] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 179. [138] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 180. [139] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 182. [140] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 182. [141] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 185–90. [142] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 190–92. [143] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 193. [144] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 193. [145] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 184–85. [146] Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 195. [147] Cf. Mortenson, The Great Turning Point, 96, 122–23, 147, 196, 214–15. [148] Peterson et al., Reason and Religious Belief, 295. [149] Young, Christianity and the Age of the Earth, 25. [150] See icr.org, answersingenesis.org, creationresearch.org, and creation.com.